20x2020 water conservation plan

February 2010
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
20x2020
Water Conservation Plan
February 2010
This plan was prepared by:
􀂃 California Department of Water Resources
􀂃 State Water Resources Control Board
􀂃 California Bay- Delta Authority
􀂃 California Energy Commission
􀂃 California Department of Public Health
􀂃 California Public Utilities Commission
􀂃 California Air Resources Board
With assistance from:
􀂃 California Urban Water Conservation Council
􀂃 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
Preface
iii
Preface
In California, water is precious, competition for water is fierce, and conservation is
critical. The value that Californians place on water is reflected in a constitutional provision
ensuring its reasonable and beneficial use. Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution
prohibits the waste and unreasonable use of this precious resource. All water within the state is
the property of the state, but the right to use water may be acquired under California law. To
manage competition for scarce water supplies, California has an appropriative water right
system that provides for the orderly development of the state's water resources while
safeguarding against waste and unreasonable use.
Despite constitutional provisions prohibiting waste and a system of water rights to manage
allocations, water conservation has always been important. California has a long history of laws,
policies and practices that promote water conservation. Conservation and efficiency of water
usage are recognized least- cost strategies to help ensure a vital economy, a healthy
environment, and a high standard of living.
As our understanding, knowledge and technology improve, we have learned that our use
of water for given purposes can also improve. Statutes and policies have been instituted that
continually define our evolving abilities to do more with less water and begin to restore the
health of the natural water systems on which we so greatly depend. Yet, with a burgeoning
population and the movement of that population to drier climates, our overall demand for water
has exceeded our reliable developed supply. Without additional action, demand will continue to
exceed supply. The Delta is in crisis, drought has depleted our reservoirs and groundwater
resources are overdrafted. Our need to pursue conservation and eliminate unnecessary uses of
water is more important than ever to ensure the future health of our state.
Contents
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................ iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms.............................................................................................. viii
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... ix
20x2020 Plan Scope and Process........................................................................................... ix
Establishing a Baseline and Targets........................................................................................ x
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ xii
Implementation................................................................................................................. .. xiii
Year 2020 and Beyond........................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................... 1
Plan Scale and Scope............................................................................................................... 2
20x2020 Planning Process ...................................................................................................... 7
Summary of the Statewide Planning Effort.................................................................... 7
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets ........................................................ 11
Establishing a Baseline.......................................................................................................... 11
Supply and Demand Data............................................................................................. 12
Data Development........................................................................................................ 13
Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions ( Basic Measures)............................ 15
Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions ( Additional Measures) ........................ 21
Efficient clothes washers.............................................................................................. 21
Residential weather- based irrigation controllers.......................................................... 21
Grant funding ............................................................................................................... 22
Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs................................................................ 22
Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3........................................ 22
Landscape practices ..................................................................................................... 23
New technologies ......................................................................................................... 24
Recycled water ............................................................................................................. 24
Putting it all together.................................................................................................... 24
Statewide Targets .................................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 3. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 31
Establish a foundation for a statewide conservation strategy................................................ 32
Establish targets and goals in statute............................................................................ 32
Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework................................ 33
Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation ............... 34
Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database .......................... 34
Maintain existing programs and institutions ................................................................ 36
Reduce landscape irrigation demand..................................................................................... 36
Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and irrigation
programs and the development of new landscape efficiency programs....................... 36
Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP........................................................................ 37
Require water efficient landscapes at all state- owned properties................................. 38
Reduce water waste............................................................................................................... 38
Accelerate installation of water meters ........................................................................ 38
v
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy..................................................... 38
Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies........................... 39
Reinforce Efficiency Codes and related BMPs ..................................................................... 39
Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washer................ 39
Support landscape Irrigation equipment standards ...................................................... 39
Accelerate replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and urinals...................... 39
Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses ............. 40
Provide financial incentives ......................................................................................... 40
Encourage or mandate conservation pricing structures................................................ 40
Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water agencies................... 41
Establish a public goods charge to provide stable funding for water management ..... 41
Fund the installation of water meters ........................................................................... 42
Implement a statewide water conservation public information and outreach campaign....... 42
Provide Enforcement Mechanisms for Water Conservation ................................................. 43
Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state financial
assistance..................................................................................................................... 43
Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water ................ 44
Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers............................................ 44
Investigate Potential Flexible Implementation Measures...................................................... 44
Investigate requiring total or partial conservation offsets ............................................ 44
Investigate a cap- and- trade regime for water conservation.......................................... 45
Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water ............................. 45
Chapter 4. Implementation ........................................................................................... 47
Phase I. 20x2020 Plan Completion and Startup Actions ...................................................... 47
Phase II. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation and Adjustment............................. 48
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 48
Challenges to Monitoring Progress .............................................................................. 48
Annual Progress Reports.............................................................................................. 48
Adjustments ................................................................................................................. 49
Implementation Barriers and Recommendations ......................................................... 49
Phase III. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 50
Appendix A. References............................................................................................... 51
Appendix B. Determination of Regional Targets ....................................................... 53
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix C. Summary of Comments on Draft 20x2020 Plan and Responses....... 57
Figures
Figure ES- 1. California Hydrologic Regions .................................................................................. xi
Figure 1. California Hydrologic Regions ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. California Reference Evapotranspiration Zones Overlapping Hydrologic Regions ........ 6
Figure 3. 20x2020 Plan Development Process................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Regional Urban Water Use Patterns ............................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Single Family Residential Indoor/ Outdoor Baseline Distribution .................................. 15
Figure 6. Regional Urban Water Use Targets ................................................................................ 28
vi
Contents
Tables
Table ES- 1. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005 ................................................................. x
Table ES- 2. Regional Urban Water Use Targets.............................................................................. x
Table ES- 3. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline .................................................................... xiii
Table 1. List of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) ...................................................................... 9
Table 2. Dataset Strengths and Limitations.................................................................................... 12
Table 3. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005 ..................................................................... 13
Table 4. Per Capita Urban Water Use in California, 1995- 2005.................................................... 14
Table 5. 2020 Efficiency Code Water Savings – GPCD................................................................ 19
Table 6. 2020 Water Savings from Cost- Effective Measures – GPCD.......................................... 20
Table 7. Summary of 2020 Savings from All Evaluated Measures – GPCD................................. 26
Table 8. Regional Urban Water Use Targets.................................................................................. 28
Table 9. Achievement of Targets by Region, 2020........................................................................ 29
Table 10. Agency Roles for Key Implementation Activities ......................................................... 34
Table 11. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline .......................................................................... 47
Table 12. Implementation Barriers and Recommendations ........................................................... 50
Table B- 1. Regional Targets........................................................................................................... 56
Table C- 1. Agencies that Submitted Comments on Draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan ...... 57
Table C- 2. Comment Categories and State Agency Responses ..................................................... 59
vii
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
viii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
($/ AF) cost per unit of savings
20x2020 Plan 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
AB Assembly Bill
AF acre- foot
AFY acre- feet per year
ARB Air Resources Board
BMPs Best Management Practices
CALFED CALFED Bay- Delta Program
CBDA California Bay- Delta Authority
CE cost effective
CEC California Energy Commission
CII Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
CO Colorado
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVP Central Valley Project
DPH Department of Public Health
DWR Department of Water Resources
ET evapotranspiration
ETo reference evapotranspiration
GHG greenhouse gases
GPCD gallons per capita daily
GWh gigawatt hour
HCF hundreds of cubic feet
HETs high- efficiency toilets
HEUs high- efficiency urinals
HR hydrologic region
IRWM integrated regional water management
LWUP Land and Water Use Program
MAF million acre- feet
MG million gallons
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MW megawatt
PBMPs Potential Best Management Practices
PWSS Public Water Systems Survey
SB Senate Bill
SF San Francisco
SJ San Joaquin
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TM technical memoranda
ULFT ultra- low- flush toilet
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
UWMPs Urban Water Management Plans
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven- part comprehensive plan
for improving the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. As part of this effort, the Governor directed
state agencies to develop a plan to reduce statewide per capita urban water use by 20 percent by
the year 2020. This marked the initiation of the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan ( 20x2020
Plan) process.
California’s water resources are finite and now require managing for sustainability.
Multiple benefits can be realized as a result of more aggressive water conservation including:
􀁹 reduced stress on the environment of the beleaguered Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta
􀁹 delayed capital cost of new infrastructure to treat and deliver water
􀁹 reduced demand for wastewater treatment, including capital costs and ongoing treatment
costs
􀁹 reduced water- related energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions
􀁹 improved ability to meet environmental needs
􀁹 improvements in the quality of receiving waters related to reduced discharge
􀁹 reduced use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides and reduced escape of these chemicals
into surface waters through use of native plants and low water using varieties, reduced
production of green waste, and improved habitat value of urban landscapes
􀁹 enhanced flexibility in water management and delivery systems, especially during dry
periods
􀁹 better capacity to meet the challenge of California’s growing population.
California can reduce its per capita use 20 percent, from the current 192 gallons per capita
daily ( GPCD) to 154 GPCD. This amounts to an annual savings of about 1.59 million acre- feet
based on the savings achieved by California’s 2005 population.
20x2020 Plan Scope and Process
The 20x2020 Plan sets forth a statewide road map to maximize the state’s urban water
efficiency and conservation opportunities between 2009 and 2020, and beyond. It aims to set in
motion a range of activities designed to achieve the 20 percent per capita reduction in urban
water demand by 2020. These activities include improving an understanding of the variation in
water use across California, promoting legislative initiatives that incentivize water agencies to
promote water conservation, and creating evaluation and enforcement mechanisms to assure
regional and statewide goals are met. The 20x2020 Plan discusses these many activities in
detail.
This 20x2020 Plan was developed through the collaborative effort of an Agency Team,
which consisted of state and federal agencies including the Department of Water Resources
( DWR), State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), California Energy Commission
( CEC), Department of Public Health ( DPH), California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC),
Air Resources Board ( ARB), California Bay- Delta Authority ( CBDA), and the US Bureau of
Reclamation ( USBR). The Agency Team also developed research papers ( Technical
Memoranda) and solicited input from water suppliers and organizations through public
workshops and conference calls during the planning phase of the 20x2020 Plan. In addition, the
California Urban Water Conservation Council contributed toward the analysis and development
of this 20x2020 Plan.
Comments received through the public review process were used to modify and shape the
recommendations of this 20x2020 Plan.
ix
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Establishing a Baseline and Targets
The 2005 statewide baseline urban water use value, expressed in gallons per capita per
day ( GPCD), is 192 GPCD. The corresponding statewide targets are:
􀁹 Interim 2015 Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 10 percent =
173 GPCD
􀁹 Final 2020 Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 20 percent =
154 GPCD.
This represents a statewide savings of 1.59 million acre- feet ( MAF) based on a population
of 37 million. California can achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in 2005 per capita water use
by 2020.
Using ten hydrologic regions as defined by DWR for water resources planning purposes,
regional baseline and target values were derived for daily per capita water use.
Table ES- 1. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005
DWR Hydrologic Region
Sector Water Use ( GPCD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10
Residential ( Single- and Multi-
Family)
115 103 109 126 174 159 180 176 255
Commercial and Institutional 18 19 17 23 25 27 23 19 38
Industrial 8 17 8 9 21 32 43 11 3
Un- Reported Water 24 18 20 22 33 30 39 31 50
Total Baseline 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
* Region 8 does not have enough usable data in the Public Water Systems Survey ( PWSS) database to
compute for baseline values by sector.
Table ES- 2. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
DWR Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
Interim Targets ( 2015) 151 144 139 165 215 211 237 208 204 278
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211
x
Executive Summary
Figure ES- 1. California Hydrologic Regions
xi
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Recommendations
Recommended actions to contribute toward a statewide strategic approach ( as described in
more detail in Chapter 3) fall into the following categories:
1. Establish a foundation for a statewide Conservation Strategy.
a. Establish targets and goals in statute.
b. Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework.
c. Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation.
d. Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database.
e. Maintain existing programs and institutions.
2. Reduce landscape irrigation demand.
a. Require water- efficient landscapes at state- owned properties.
b. Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and irrigation
programs and the development of new landscape programs.
c. Mandate the landscape irrigation Best Management Practices ( BMP).
3. Reduce water waste.
a. Accelerate installation of water meters.
b. Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy.
c. Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies and
accelerate coverage goals.
4. Reinforce efficiency codes and related BMPs.
a. Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washers.
b. Support landscape irrigation equipment standards.
c. Accelerate replacement of inefficient showerheads, toilets and urinals.
d. Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses.
5. Provide financial incentives.
a. Encourage or mandate conservation water pricing.
b. Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water suppliers and
customers.
c. Establish a public goods charge for water.
d. Fund the installation of water meters.
6. Implement a statewide conservation public information and outreach campaign.
7. Provide new or exercise existing enforcement mechanisms to facilitate water
conservation.
a. Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state
financial assistance.
b. Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water.
c. Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers.
8. Investigate potential flexible implementation measures.
a. Investigate requiring conservation offsets for water demand generated by new
development.
b. Investigate establishment of a cap- and- trade regime.
9. Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water.
xii
Executive Summary
xiii
Implementation
The 20x2020 Plan will be implemented through three phases, as outlined in Table ES- 3.
In November 2009, California placed the 20x2020 goal into statute with the enactment of
SBX7 7 ( Steinberg), as part of an historic package of water reforms.
Table ES- 3. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline
Plan Phase Year Activities
I. 20x2020 Plan
Completion and Start-up
Actions
2009 – 2010 • Finalize 20x2020 Plan
• Establish a lead agency and coordination framework
• Convene a stakeholder advisory group
• Develop detailed implementation task descriptions for
recommended actions
• Provide technical assistance in conservation legislation
discussions
• Evaluate an interim data collection and management
mechanism
• Collect, manage and validate data
• Implement conservation actions
• Conduct legislative, regulatory and administrative actions
• Provide oversight
II. 20x2020 Plan
Implementation,
Monitoring, Evaluation,
Adjustments
2011 – 2020 • Establish interim and long- term data collection and
management
• Implement conservation actions
• Monitor implementation progress
• Assess and design additional measures such as a
conservation offset and a conservation credits trading
program as needed
• Conduct an Interim Target Assessment and Performance
Evaluation in 2015
III. Conclusion 2020 • Conduct a Final Target Assessment and Performance
Evaluation
• Publish Results and Lessons Learned
Year 2020 and Beyond
Water resources will continue to be scarce beyond 2020. An important factor to the
success of this 20x2020 Plan, from now through 2020 and beyond, relies on the fundamental
revolution of the way Californians view water. One of the many goals of this 20x2020 Plan is to
bring Californians to recognize that the water our lives depend on is indeed a very limited
resource, and that it must be used wisely, innovatively, responsibly, and efficiently. The success
of the 20x2020 Plan also demands political will to continue to invest and push to capture the
full extent of water conservation potential.
In succeeding, this 20x2020 Plan will not only bring benefits to California but will also
allow us to share this leadership and experience in the national and international efforts to
mitigate the global crisis of water deficiencies.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven- part comprehensive
plan for improving the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. The first element of the Governor’s
Delta plan is water conservation. In the Governor’s words, California must have:
“ A plan to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use
statewide by 2020. Conservation is one of the key ways to provide water for
Californians and protect and improve the Delta ecosystem. A number of
efforts are already underway to expand conservation programs, but I plan to
direct state agencies to develop this more aggressive plan and implement it to
the extent permitted by current law. I would welcome legislation to
incorporate this goal into statute.”
The Governor’s call for greater conservation is reflected in the work of the Delta
Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Vision and Strategic Plan of the Task Force call for
significantly greater implementation of water use efficiency measures to reduce water export
demands on the Delta and its struggling ecosystem and to improve environmental conditions
upstream and downstream of the Delta.
Delta protection and restoration are not the only reasons to increase conservation
efforts. Global climate change will affect water management in California, and water
conservation will help the state not only mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions but also adapt to climate change by reducing water use. Approximately one- fifth
of the electricity and one- third of the non- power plant natural gas consumed in the state are
associated with water delivery, treatment and use, so efficient use also can reduce water-related
energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Without this program,
water- related greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 would be higher than is currently forecast.
The Water Energy Subgroup of the Climate Action Team estimates that this plan will reduce
emissions by 1.4 million metric tons per year.
Water conservation is also an attractive water management strategy because it can
yield multiple benefits. Reduced demand can reduce or delay the capital cost of new
infrastructure to treat and deliver water. Reduced use also reduces the demand for
wastewater treatment, including capital costs and ongoing treatment costs. There may also
be improvements in the quality of receiving waters related to reduced discharge. Landscape
water conservation can yield multiple benefits including reduced use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides and reduced escape of these chemicals into surface waters through
use of native plants and low water using varieties, reduced production of green waste, and
improved habitat value of urban landscapes. These other benefits are particularly important
upstream of the Delta, where effluent discharge and over- application of irrigation water
often re- enter the natural system and the net water savings from landscape conservation is
lower than it is in areas that discharge to the ocean.
The California Water Plan acknowledges the importance of water conservation as an
element of statewide water management. The California Water Plan Update 2005, as well as
the draft California Water Plan Update 2009, identifies urban water conservation as the
water management strategy that will be most effective at matching supply and demand.
California needs a comprehensive plan to increase water use efficiency and achieve the
multiple benefits that accompany more efficient use, along with a comprehensive finance
plan that supports continuing investment in efficiency.
1
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
This 20x2020 Plan outlines recommendations to the Governor on content and
implementation of the requested “ more aggressive plan”. These recommendations were
developed through a collaborative effort of the Agency Team, involving several agencies
that are involved in water planning and management. The Agency Team consists of seven
state agencies and a federal agency: Department of Water Resources ( DWR), State Water
Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), California Energy Commission ( CEC), Department of
Public Health ( DPH), California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC), Air Resources Board
( ARB), California Bay- Delta Authority ( CBDA) and the US Bureau of Reclamation
( USBR). In addition, the California Urban Water Conservation Council contributed toward
the analysis and development of this 20x2020 Plan. Extensive public input has helped to
improve the plan and will be an important part of future refinement and implementation.
Achieving a 20 percent reduction in statewide per capita urban water use is a
challenging task. Achieving it by 2020 will require quick and concerted effort throughout the
state. However, the urgent threat of water deficiency and overdraft, water needs of the
environment, a growing population, and the unknown impact of climate change on water
supplies, requires that California move boldly to foster water conservation.
Conservation versus Efficiency
The terms water conservation and water use efficiency are often used interchangeably. As used in
this report, water conservation is defined as a reduction in water loss, waste, or use. The general
term water conservation may include water use efficiency, in which more water- related tasks are
accomplished with the same or lesser amounts of water.
When widespread conservation programs are implemented, water managers may
become concerned about demand hardening. This is the phenomenon in which customers
lose the ability to easily institute emergency conservation during drought or other crises
because they have already captured all their conservation savings. Although this is a
legitimate concern, California will still have ample conservation opportunity even after
statewide per capita use is reduced by 20 percent, through additional fixture and appliance
replacement, reductions in landscape irrigation, and habit change.
Plan Scale and Scope
To meet the Governor’s charge, the Agency Team has worked to develop the 20x2020
Plan that answers these questions:
􀁹 What is per capita urban use now or in some recent base period?
􀁹 What would the reduction in per capita use be when the Governor’s goal is met?
􀁹 How does per capita use vary across the state?
􀁹 How does the potential for additional conservation vary across the state?
􀁹 Is it feasible to expect that the Governor’s goal can be met?
􀁹 Will existing measures enable us to achieve the Governor’s goal? How does this vary by
region?
􀁹 Can we expect to achieve the goal with new measures? What would it take to implement
them?
􀁹 How might implementation ( and needed implementation assistance) vary by region?
This 20x2020 Plan is intended to be part of a comprehensive program to improve
water supply reliability, restore ecosystem health, and improve the Delta. California
must reduce its per capita water use. Other vital parts of a comprehensive program include
2
Chapter 1. Introduction
improved Delta conveyance, more water storage, and restoration of ecosystem health in the
Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta.
This 20x2020 Plan addresses only urban water use and conservation. To achieve a
reduction in overall water use while protecting the Delta’s ecosystem, it is recognized that
both urban and agricultural water use must be more efficient. The Governor’s charge was to
achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita use, which implies an urban focus. There are
many differences between California’s urban and agricultural supplies and demands. These
differences in water qualities and quantities, delivery systems, and other use characteristics,
coupled with different institutional and conservation mechanisms require that separate
mechanisms be developed to address the urban and agricultural sectors.
The focus on urban use here does not diminish the relevance of agricultural use to the
state’s total water use or the potential for significant reductions in overall state water use
from the agricultural sector. Urban water suppliers are required by statute to prepare and
periodically update urban water management plans. Efficiency programs are built on this
planning foundation. No comparable requirement exists for irrigation districts. Legislative
bills introduced to place the Governor’s 20x2020 goal into statute recognize the importance
of this planning foundation. Bills have also proposed new agricultural water management
planning requirements for irrigation districts that are parallel to the standards that have been
in place for urban suppliers since 1983. This balanced and comprehensive approach is a
sound water management strategy.
This 20x2020 Plan will be implemented consistent with water rights protections in
Water Code Section 1011. An appropriative water right holder does not lose the right to
water that is conserved. Water Code section 1011 allows an appropriator to retain the right to
water to the extent water is not used due to water conservation efforts. Under this provision,
" water conservation" is broadly defined to mean the use of less water for the same purpose
of use allowed under the appropriative water right. A permittee or licensee who seeks the
benefit of section 1011 must file periodic reports with the State Water Resources Control
Board describing the extent and amount of the reduction in water use due to water
conservation efforts.
This 20x2020 Plan addresses only potable water use. “ Water use efficiency” in
some state programs includes both water conservation and water recycling, but this meaning
is not used for this plan. Urban potable water use includes all residential, commercial,
institutional and industrial users as well as non- revenue water. Non- potable recycled water
was excluded while estimating baseline per capita urban water use to give credit to agencies
that have promoted recycled water in the past. Additional use of recycled water will be a
significant method by which regions can continue to offset baseline potable urban water
demand to meet 2020 goals.
This 20x2020 Plan does not consider processes that convert a non- potable source
into a potable source as methods to reduce per capita use, since they are new supply
options. Desalination and use of recycled water to recharge aquifers or augment surface
supplies are included among these new supply options. Municipal stormwater capture is also
a new supply option and is therefore not considered in this plan.
This 20x2020 Plan does not address water supplied by customers for their own
use or consider processes that create new supply on the customer side of the meter. The
plan focuses on potable water supplied in municipal distribution systems and does not
include quantities of self- supplied water in per capita use calculations. Some water users
have access to groundwater or surface water to provide a part or all of their water needs. In
addition, alternative sources of water, such as graywater ( untreated household waste water
3
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
from clothes washers, tubs and showers), rainwater recapture, and on- site diverted
stormwater are examples of non- potable sources that may reduce per capita use, but were not
included in the analysis at this time.
This 20x2020 Plan does not address water losses in transmission of water between
sources of supply and potable water treatment and distribution systems. An attempt has
been made to account for water losses within potable water distribution systems, captured
within the categories of “ non- revenue water” or “ unreported water.” In the DWR database
that was the primary source of data for this project, “ un- reported water” includes “ large
landscapes” ( parks, golf courses, schools) ) for which water deliveries may not be measured;
“ other” ( system flushing, fire hydrant testing, etc.); and “ non- revenue water” ( previously
referred to as “ un- accounted for water” ( i. e., system water losses from leaks, slow meter
registers, theft, etc.) Further discussion of data development can be found in Chapter 2.
This 20x2020 Plan recommends actions that will reduce per capita use, not total
urban use, by 20 percent. While this 20x2020 Plan is being implemented, California’s
population will continue to grow. Depending on the rate of population growth, total urban
water use may never go down and could eventually rise, even if all the recommendations in
this 20x2020 Plan are successfully implemented. Clearly, this 20x2020 Plan alone will not
lead to long- term sustainable water use. Other efforts to balance supply and demand will be
needed, including continued reductions in per capita demand. Reduced per capita use is just
one part of a comprehensive program to improve water supply reliability and restore
ecosystem health.
This 20x2020 Plan is based on analyses conducted on a regional and statewide
basis. The analyses were designed to account for regional differences, including varying
levels of past conservation in different regions and varying climate that affects outdoor water
use. Two regional approaches to planning were considered – use of hydrologic regions ( HR)
and reference evapotranspiration ( ETo) zones. Hydrologic Regions refer to the 10 regions
delineated by DWR based on topographic and hydrologic characteristics ( Figure 1). ETo
zones refer to the 18 zones delineated by DWR and the University of California based on
climate characteristics ( Figure 2) related to the consumption of water by well- watered cool
season turfgrass species. Analysis at the water supplier level was not carried out because the
supplier- level data were inconsistent and incomplete, and such a fine level of detail was not
considered necessary to develop the 20x2020 Plan.
Data analysis and development of conservation targets for planning purposes was
conducted by hydrologic region rather than ETo zone for two reasons. First, a large portion
of data available for undertaking the analyses presented here were either already collated by
hydrologic region, or were easier to collate by hydrologic region than by ETo zones. Second,
major funding for integrated regional water management – including water conservation – is
structured according to hydrologic region. Regional entities, such as Integrated Regional
Water Management consortia, have an important role to play in the success of this 20x2020
Plan and implementing its recommendations. Nevertheless, climate is a powerful factor
affecting water use. Ideal regional targets would reflect the climate variability represented by
the ETo zones, would result in irrigation water use substantially lower than ETo amounts,
and would be flexible enough to accommodate implementation at the geographic scale of
hydrologic region or water supplier service area.
This 20x020 Plan does not set targets for individual water suppliers. Within each
hydrologic region, there are wide variations among water suppliers. Many factors can affect
per capita use, including varying climate within a region, varying land use patterns and
population density, different kinds of commercial and industrial use, and past conservation
4
Chapter 1. Introduction
effort. This plan does not provide the guidance needed to move from regional planning
targets to supplier- specific targets. Water supplier targets could be developed using a per
capita approach like the regional targets, or could account for local differences by
establishing reasonable use levels through the calculation of water budgets.
Figure 1. California Hydrologic Regions
5
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
6
Figure 2. California Reference Evapotranspiration Zones
Overlapping Hydrologic Regions
20x2020 Planning Process
20x2020 Planning Process
The process of developing the 20x2020 Plan is illustrated in Figure 3 ( completed steps
are highlighted). There are five steps:
1. Data Analysis
2. Baseline Definition
3. Preliminary Targets Development
4. Conservation Potential Identification
5. Implementation Planning
In this 20x2020 Plan, findings of previous works are summarized, and many tools and
activities that the state and local water suppliers could implement to achieve a statewide
20 percent reduction in per capita use are described.
Summary of the Statewide Planning Effort
A significant amount of data collection and technical analysis was conducted to
prepare this 20x2020 Plan. Results of this work are contained in the following technical
memoranda ( TMs). All of these documents are available at the following website hosted by
SWRCB: http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ water_ issues/ hot_ topics/ 20x2020/ index. shtml
These TMs were draft working documents and were not updated to include changes
made in response to public comment or further analysis by the agency team. They provided a
starting point, with comments and discussion from stakeholders and the team modifying the
approach and conclusions of the initial TM findings to produce this document. As such, they
provide a historic reference to this 20x2020 Plan.
Figure 3. 20x2020 Plan Development Process
7
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
TM 1. Establishing Baselines
This TM evaluated the available potable water use data and established baseline per
capita water use values for each of the ten hydrologic regions, expressed as gallons per
capita daily or GPCD. These baselines were used to determine the target GPCD values.
TM 2. Determining Conservation Targets
Urban water use varies widely among regions, due to the effect of past conservation
efforts, community attributes, and climate differences. A uniform statewide 20 percent
reduction in water use would fail to properly account for these regional differences. To
provide one idea of how regional targets might vary, this TM used the baseline GPCD values
determined in TM 1 to set the target GPCD values for each of the ten hydrologic regions.
These targets were derived before savings estimates from “ current” and “ future”
conservation programs and actions were fully developed. Considerable public input on
target- setting received at public workshops prompted further revision of both the
methodology and the targets. The revised targets and methodology discussed in this
document supersede what was earlier presented in TM 2. See Chapter 2 of this 20x2020 Plan
for additional discussion.
TM 3 ( Performance Metrics) and TM 6 ( Implementation Plan) were not developed
as Technical Memoranda as originally anticipated. They are not posted as Technical
Memoranda on the website, but are addressed only in this 20x2020 Plan, as described in
Chapter 4. Because of timing and funding constraints, these topics were not presented for
discussion at early workshops but were included for discussion during the final public
workshop.
TM 4. Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions
TM 4 evaluated GPCD savings that each region could likely achieve using existing
conservation tools and programs. Measures quantified include the impact of existing
plumbing codes; the potential impact of existing regulatory initiatives requiring complete
urban metering by 2025; the implementation of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) at
existing rates ( except for high efficiency clothes washers which were considered as a new
action); and improving these implementation rates in the future because of recent legislation
( AB 1420, Laird 2007), which ties receipt of water- related state grant funding to BMP
implementation.
After adopting the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation ( MOU) in 1991, many urban water
suppliers initiated water conservation programs identified as BMPs in the MOU. These
BMPs are listed in Table 1.
A key source for the savings estimates was the CALFED Bay- Delta Program’s Water
Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation ( referred to hereinafter as Comprehensive
Evaluation). 1 This evaluation was conducted by the CALFED Bay- Delta Program to assess
water use efficiency progress made during the implementation of the CALFED Program
from 2000 to 2004, and to assess the potential for additional efficiency improvements under
several different funding and implementation scenarios. To develop the 20x2020 Plan, these
estimates were updated to account for new codes, such as AB 715 ( Laird, 2007), that
requires only high- efficiency toilets and urinals ( HETs and HEUs) to be sold or installed
1 CALFED Bay- Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, “ Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation,”
August 2006.
8
20x2020 Planning Process
after January 1, 2014. The Comprehensive Evaluation’s savings estimates were also adjusted
to 2005, the last year of the 11- year water production data history from which baseline
GPCD estimates were derived. The Comprehensive Evaluation examines different levels of
implementation of the Best Management Practices for Urban Water Conservation ( BMPs) as
described in the Memorandum of Understanding administered by CUWCC. Although the
MOU was revised in December 2008, the list of BMPs presented here is as they existed prior
to this revision since that is how the Comprehensive Evaluation’s analyses were conducted.
Table 1. List of Best Management Practices ( BMPs)
BMP Description
BMP 1 Water survey programs for residential customers
BMP 2 Residential plumbing retrofit
BMP 3 System water audits, leak detection and repair
BMP 4 Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing
unmetered connections
BMP 5 Large landscape conservation programs and incentives
BMP 6 High efficiency clothes- washing machine financial incentive program
BMP 7 Public information programs
BMP 8 School education programs
BMP 9 Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, institutional ( CII) accounts
BMP 10 Wholesale agency assistance programs
BMP 11 Retail conservation pricing
BMP 12 Conservation coordinator
BMP 13 Water waste prohibition
BMP 14 Residential ultra- low- flush toilet ( ULFT) replacement programs
TM 5. Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions
TM 5 evaluated GPCD savings that each region could likely achieve through new
conservation tools and programs. Measures quantified include savings from the retrofit of
inefficient clothes washers with more efficient washers, retrofit of large- landscape
residences with weather- based irrigation controllers, and several new technologies evaluated
by CUWCC as part of its Potential Best Management Practice review. TM 5 also estimated
additional savings likely if coverage goals for a select set of BMPs are expanded relative to
what is stated in the MOU, if aggressive programs are pursued to reduce unaccounted for
water beyond what is required by the MOU, if residential irrigation is restricted to only one
or two days per week, and if recycling projects come on line as projected.
Finally, TM 5 presented some placeholder estimates of likely additional savings at an
assumed level of investment of grant funds for water conservation. These savings estimates
are also drawn from the Comprehensive Evaluation. The scenario assumes that $ 30 million
per year would be available between 2005 and 2014, and $ 7.5 million per year thereafter
until 2020. It is important to note that the Comprehensive Evaluation followed an elaborate
cost- effectiveness criterion to allocate funds across different hydrologic regions, taking into
9
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
10
account an estimate of the marginal cost of water to a region. Under Proposition 84, which
allocated $ 1 billion in grant funds for water management, each region is assured a
proportionate share of the total grant funding. This does not assure that regional funds will
be used to implement efficiency improvements, and conservation efforts have been more
modest in areas such as the Central Valley where the cost of water has been comparatively
lower. Therefore, estimates of grant- funded savings should be treated as highly uncertain.
Additional incentives or disincentives may be needed to improve water use efficiency in
regions where the price of water is furthest from fully reflecting the true costs of the water
supply and does not include the costs of extensive conservation programs.
Public Outreach
Information on development of the 20x2020 Plan is posted on the SWRCB website at:
http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ water_ issues/ hot_ topics/ 20x2020/ index. shtml
This website also includes links to all the TMs.
The 20x2020 Plan effort hosted three public workshops and a toll- free conference call
to receive input on the conservation planning effort, and conducted a scoping session in
conjunction with a meeting of the Water Plan All Regions forum.
􀁹 A Scoping Session was conducted in San Jose on June 2, 2008 in conjunction with an
“ All Regions Forum,” a meeting supporting the update of the California Water Plan.
This session focused on gathering input about approach and content of the prospective
20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 1 was held in Sacramento on September 15, 2008 and included over
100 participants. This first workshop focused on establishing baseline GPCD and targets
for the year 2020. The discussion provided an overview of the 20 percent by 2020
process and allowed stakeholders to share ideas and questions directly with the Agency
Team. The workshop allowed the Agency Team to get an initial read on the public’s
concerns and sentiments which were incorporated into the draft 20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 2 was held in Sacramento on November 20, 2008 and included over
40 stakeholders. The second workshop focused on potential conservation savings from
current and new actions. Public comments included an extensive dialogue regarding the
treatment of commercial, industrial and institutional target setting. Public comments
were addressed and folded into the draft 20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Stakeholders present at the second workshop requested a conference call be held to
provide additional clarification on the method used to establish conservation targets.
This conference call was hosted on December 8, 2008 and included over 40 participants.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 3 was held in Sacramento on May 29, 2009 and focused on the public
review draft of the 20x2020 Plan. Also, written comments on the draft plan were
received through the program website and posted on the website for public review.
Appendix C of this final plan includes a summary of the major categories of comments
received, and a summary of the agency team responses.
􀁹 Throughout the 20x2020 Plan process a public comment e- mail address was active as a
mechanism for providing input and a means for posing questions regarding the process.
Before each workshop roughly one dozen comments were submitted via email and were
addressed by the Agency Team.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Water use depends on various factors such as population, climate, land use patterns,
( lot sizes, square footage of irrigated landscape), the age and condition of the water
distribution infrastructure ( water losses), and industrial and socioeconomic characteristics
( the cost of water and income level of residents) of a region. There are significant variations
in per capita use across the state reflecting these factors. The analyses in this 20x2020 Plan
are presented by hydrologic region in part to recognize and account for some of this
variation.
In order to achieve a savings target, it is essential to first define a baseline. Data from a
number of different sources were assessed, as described in following section. However, the
data available for this analysis were not complete and accuracy levels vary significantly
among water suppliers. Furthermore, through the existing water use data collection systems,
there is a considerable lag time between when data are collected and when they are reported
to the various entities. With this in mind, the analyses provided in this 20x2020 Plan should
be treated as initial estimates, based on the best available information. An important step in
implementing this 20x2020 Plan will be to standardize and improve the data collection
process. This recommendation is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.
The baseline and target water use levels described in this plan are for hydrologic
regions. This plan does not describe methods to calculate targets for individual water
suppliers, and the target for a hydrologic region may not be the appropriate target for a
particular supplier within that region, because the regional target may be too low or too high.
These targets were developed for planning at the statewide and regional level.
Establishing a Baseline
The baseline values for each region represent the starting point of the 20x2020 Plan,
and help to determine the progress achieved toward the Governor’s goal. Establishing the
baseline is a dynamic process. The methodology used to develop the baseline in the planning
effort of this 20x2020 Plan was based on the data and resources available at this time and is
a good first step towards accomplishing the 20x2020 Plan’s goals. There is ample room,
however, for improvement and refinement of the baseline as new information becomes
available. Accordingly, this plan recommends improved data collection and management.
Over the years, many agencies and organizations – including DWR, DPH, CPUC and
CUWCC – have collected urban water use data depending upon their goals and needs. Each
dataset has strengths and limitations, as summarized in Table 2.
11
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Table 2. Dataset Strengths and Limitations
Data Source Strength Limitation
DWR – Public Water
Systems Survey
( PWSS)
• Detailed water production, water delivery,
population, and connections data.
• Categorized by market sectors ( e. g., residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.).
• Compiled into a central database.
• Conducted annually.
• Collected voluntarily, which impacts data
completeness and accuracy.
• Recent data ( 2005- present) have not yet been
compiled and validated, and are not available for
use for this Plan.
DWR – Land and Water
Use Program ( LWUP)
• An extension from PWSS database, with data
validated and modified at a sub- county level and
validated using professional judgment.
• Every area has a water use value.
• Only three ( 3) years of data are available ( 1998,
2000, and 2001).
California Urban Water
Conservation Council
( CUWCC)
• Detailed water use data by demand
sector/ customer type
• Includes estimates of water saved through
conservation Best Management Practices
• Only entered by Signatories of Memorandum of
Understanding ( approximately 225 of largest
urban water suppliers in 2008)
• Values expressed in 2006 dollars.
CPUC • Recent urban water use data readily available.
• Mandatory so data set should be complete.
• Limited data points
• Only residential data available.
• Data for connections and water use only.
• Data was reported on annual basis, which limits
the analysis for residential indoor/ outdoor water
use.
DPH • More complete database since the Safe Drinking
Water Act requires water suppliers to report
water use data annually.
• Not available electronically.
• Has not been compiled into a central database.
Stored as hard copies in each DPH office across
the state.
Urban Water
Management Plans
( UWMPs) prepared by
Water Suppliers
• Could provide more detail on water use because
plans are prepared by individual water suppliers.
• Water suppliers serving more than 3,000
connections or more than 3,000 AFY are
required by law to develop and submit UWMPs.
• Mandatory but compliance is not 100 percent.
• Developed only once every five years.
• Not compiled into a central database and
therefore not available electronically.
• No data from small water suppliers that serve
fewer than 3,000 connections or 3,000 AFY.
Supply and Demand Data
Because water production data for any given year includes missing and inconsistent
elements, several years of production and delivery data ( 1995 through 2005) were pooled to
derive more stable average estimates of baseline consumption. Based on these data, no
discernable trend was observed in the overall statewide and regional per capita water use
over this period. Therefore, the most recent year for this period, 2005, has been selected as
the baseline year.
Review of the strengths and limitations associated with the available databases
revealed that data provided by DWR ( both the PWSS and LWUP databases) contain the
most relevant information that could be used for this 20x2020 Plan. There are a number of
uncertainties and possible inaccuracies in these data, but they were the best available at this
time.
12
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Because data submittal to DWR is voluntary, the completeness and accuracy of these
data vary substantially between water suppliers. Some suppliers did not provide data for
certain market sectors and/ or certain years. Suppliers also used different methods in
measuring water production and delivery. It is also evident that water suppliers had different
understandings of specific data fields.
Most suppliers did not provide data on recycled water. If recycled water data were
provided, they were removed from the demand data used to calculate per capita use. This
plan encourages greater use of recycled water by crediting the substitution of recycled water
for potable water as a reduction in potable per capita water use.
Water production of private water suppliers ( e. g., residents with private water wells) is
not captured in the PWSS database and was therefore also excluded from this analysis.
Data Development
Table 3 and Figure 4 below show the variations in average GPCD across the state’s
10 hydrologic regions from the data analyzed in the PWSS database. This includes the base
sectors of total residential, commercial, industrial and other/ non- revenue where data were
available.
Review of the compiled data by hydrologic region showed significant variations across
the state. As expected, the GPCD values were higher in the more arid areas such as the
Colorado Basin ( Region 10). The coastal regions ( 1 through 4) have the lowest GPCD,
partly because they have a cooler climate, limited water supplies, and higher cost of water,
and because these areas have implemented more water conservation programs than many of
the inland areas.
Table 3. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005
Hydrologic Region
Sector Water Use
( GPCD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10
Residential ( Single- and Multi-
Family)
115 103 109 126 174 159 180 176 255
Commercial and Institutional 18 19 17 23 25 27 23 19 38
Industrial 8 17 8 9 21 32 43 11 3
Un- Reported Water 24 18 20 22 33 30 39 31 50
Total Baseline 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
* Region 8 does not have enough usable data in the PWSS database to compute for baseline values. The
LWUP database was used instead. Note that the LWUP database only contains data for 1998, 2000, 2001.
The baseline values for this region may not be as reliable as values computed for the other regions.
13
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Figure 4. Regional Urban Water Use Patterns
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hydrologic Region
GPCD
Total Residential Commercial Industrial Other, Non- Revenue
Table 4. Per Capita Urban Water Use in California, 1995- 2005
Hydrologic Region
Weighted Average
1995- 2005, GPCD
Range,
GPCD
Region 1: North Coast 165 141- 170
Region 2: San Francisco Bay 157 149- 173
Region 3: Central Coast 154 141- 177
Region 4: South Coast 180 171- 198
Region 5: Sacramento River 253 237- 272
Region 6: San Joaquin River 248 236- 250
Region 7: Tulare Lake 285 242- 341
Region 8: North Lahontan 243 242- 385
Region 9: South Lahontan 237 221- 286
Region 10: Colorado River 346 272- 387
As demonstrated in Table 4, even within hydrologic regions there is significant
variation in use, due to climatic, demographic, or economic factors as well as differing levels
of conservation implementation. This variation demonstrates the need for flexibility in the
design of local conservation programs: no two service areas are identical. As demonstrated
in Figure 5 analysis of the baseline data indicated that outdoor water use is a significant part
of the demand profile for single family households, and reflects a large part of the
differences among regional data. Comparison of the lowest monthly consumption data
( which usually represents mostly indoor use) with the rest of the year showed large potential
for water savings due to landscape modifications or irrigation restrictions. In all Regions
outdoor water consumption exceeds 40 percent of urban consumption. In Regions 5 through
10, it represents more than 50 percent of total demand, and almost 70 percent of demand in
Regions 9 and 10. ( There was insufficient data to represent HR 8 in Figure 5).
14
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Figure 5. Single Family Residential Indoor/ Outdoor Baseline Distribution
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HYDROLOGIC REGION
GPCD
OUTDOOR
INDOOR
There was insufficient data to represent Hydrologic Region 8.
Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions
( Basic Measures)
Retail water suppliers in California have reported per capita water use remaining
steady or dropping since the early 1990s in many parts of California, for several reasons.
First, after adopting the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s MOU in 1991,
many urban water suppliers have undertaken water conservation programs identified as Best
Management Practices ( BMPs) in the MOU.
The state has also undertaken several regulatory initiatives to improve water use
efficiency, such as mandating that unmetered connections be metered by 2025; that new
construction with significant landscaped areas be subject to plan review to ensure that
efficient irrigation systems and low water- using plants are being used ( Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance); and that there is better coordination between land use and
water use planning ( SB 221 and SB 610, 2001). Not all of these BMPs, regulatory initiatives,
new technologies, or education and outreach activities have easily quantifiable effects, but
they are generally acknowledged to affect water use.
However, overall statewide and regional per capita water use trends remained flat in
California between 1995 and 2005, as indicated in the available datasets employed by this
20x2020 Plan. This suggests that other factors have been at play counteracting the effect of
BMPs, codes, and the above- mentioned regulatory initiatives or perhaps that progress in
reducing GPCDs that have been made in some communities have been offset by increasing
GPCDs in other communities.
The effect of the following codes, active programs, and regulatory activities have been
considered in quantifying conservation savings from current actions.
1. Regulatory activities
a. The conversion of unmetered connections served by the Federal Central
Valley Project ( CVP) to metered connections by 2013, and non- CVP
unmetered connections converted by January 1, 2025, as required by state
law.
15
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
2. Codes related to plumbing and appliance efficiency
a. The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act requiring the sale of efficient
showerheads and California Code regarding high efficiency toilets, AB 715
( Health and Safety Code section 17921.4), that requires only high- efficiency
toilets and urinals ( HETs and HEUs) to be sold or installed after January 1,
2014.
3. Best Management Practices
a. The active conservation programs aimed at retrofit of inefficient fixtures
( BMPs 1, 2, 9 and 14), those aimed at improving outdoor water use efficiency
in residential ( BMP 1) and large landscape settings ( BMP 5), those aimed at
improving water use efficiency in Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
( CII) settings ( BMP 9), and those aimed at reducing system leaks ( BMP 3).
The impact of high- efficiency clothes washer retrofits ( BMP 6) is included
among future actions because this BMP was not being aggressively
implemented during the baseline period, and uncertainty remains about when
a waiver of federal pre- emption might be obtained for the state’s efficient
clothes washer standard. The remaining BMPs have non- quantifiable benefits.
4. New technologies already having an impact
a. Two new conservation measures that are already being implemented under the
auspices of CII programs: ( 1) pre- rinse spray valves; ( 2) steam sterilizers.
Table 5 shows potential savings from code and regulation- driven retrofits, and from
conversion of unmetered accounts to metered accounts. Codes bring about increased
efficiency in two ways. They ensure that fixtures and appliances in new construction are
more efficient. Also, they ensure that when old fixtures and appliances in existing
construction turn over, they are replaced by the more efficient kind.
Table 6 shows potential savings that result from BMP implementation ( except for
BMP 6) up to a point that is regionally cost effective. A measure is regionally cost- effective
if the cost per unit of savings ($/ AF) is less than or equal to the cost of the most expensive
supply measure currently in use regionally. The impact of regionally cost- effective retrofits
of pre- rinse spray valves, commercial dishwashers, steam sterilizers, CII process water, and
efficient residential dishwashers are also included in these estimates. The regionally cost-effective
estimates of savings potential come from the Comprehensive Evaluation, which
provides a complete description of the underlying data, methodology, and models used to
develop these estimates.
Four important caveats apply to these estimates. First, savings estimated to result from
the cost- effective implementation of BMPs ( Table 6) assume both signatories and non-signatories
of the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding implement all BMPs and other
measures deemed regionally cost- effective ( the row entitled “ total savings GPCD @
100 percent compliance). This level of implementation exceeds what water suppliers have
achieved historically through the MOU process. On the other hand, BMP implementation
data filed by MOU signatories is also of uneven quality and does not capture conservation by
non- signatories. Relying solely on these implementation reports will likely understate
achieved conservation. Keeping in mind these data problems, and that only approximately
60 percent of California’s population was being served by retail water supplier MOU
signatories as of 2006, perhaps only half of the 100 percent compliance savings is likely to
be realized if current trends continue. On the other hand, passage of AB 1420 in 2007 ( Water
Code, section 10631.5) is widely expected to spur water suppliers to increase their efforts to
16
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
implement BMPs. It is assumed that enforcement of AB 1420 will result in 80 percent
compliance with cost- effective conservation measures. Table 5 shows that efficiency codes
can be expected to lower statewide water use by 4 percent and regionally cost- effective
programs at 80 percent compliance achieve an additional 6 percent ( Table 6) for a total
statewide reduction of 10 percent.
Second, estimation of baseline consumption itself involves several uncertainties, which
if properly accounted for, could further lower the above reported percent savings estimates.
Because water production data for any given year includes missing and inconsistent
elements, several years of production data ( 1995 through 2005) were pooled to derive more
stable average estimates of baseline consumption. Production data from 2005 ( the most
recent year for which statewide water production data are available) was used as the base
year for estimating remaining savings potential through 2015 and 2020.
Third, code- driven savings associated with toilets and showerheads are computed
using unverified saturation estimates. Small errors in baseline saturation estimates can have
significant impacts.
Finally, the regional marginal water supply cost estimates upon which the cost-effectiveness
analyses are based are somewhat dated and may not capture changes in the
State’s water supply situation, particularly as it pertains to the Delta, that have driven up
water supply costs in recent years. Economic incentives to invest locally in water use
efficiency measures may now be greater than assumed for these analyses.
The savings estimates in this chapter reflect two different approaches to cost-effectiveness.
First, certain BMPs are assumed to be implemented to the level of local cost-effectiveness,
or 80 percent of the level of local cost- effectiveness.
Second, many conservation measures will be implemented without any local
calculation of cost- effectiveness. This implementation is prompted by state or federal law,
institutional agreement, and local practice, and there are many examples. Federal and state
fixture efficiency standards ensure any replacement toilets, showerhead, or faucets will be
highly efficient. California law requires local governments to enact landscape water
conservation ordinances that are at least as effective as the state’s model ordinance.
Hundreds of water suppliers have agreed to implement “ non- quantifiable BMPs” such as
information and education programs. Finally, local governments routinely prohibit wasteful
practices such as gutter flooding, regardless of a customer’s cost to prevent such runoff. As
described in Chapter 3, grant funding is a means of reducing costs of measures that are cost-effective
from a statewide perspective such that the measures become locally cost- effective.
Grant funding is not assumed for the estimates in Table 6.
The analyses of current actions yield several important conclusions. Efficiency codes
still have considerable potential to further reduce water consumption in California on a per
capita basis, even in hydrologic regions with already less than average use. Also,
implementation of BMPs to a level that is regionally cost effective can almost double the
impact of efficiency codes in certain hydrologic regions, such as San Francisco Bay and
South Coast that account for a large share of the state’s population, thus also water use.
On the other hand, simply following a BMP strategy, which relies on voluntary
implementation of locally cost- effective conservation measures, would fail to ensure
implementation of some very reasonable basic conservation measures in many other
hydrologic regions. For example, the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, North and South
Lahontan, and Tulare Lake regions are also home to a significant share of California’s
population, but urban water supply costs remain low relative to other parts of the state.
Different mechanisms will need to be devised to incentivize water suppliers in these regions
17
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
18
to aggressively pursue conservation. The AB 1420 requirement for water suppliers to
implement conservation measures in order to receive state grant or loan funds already
attempts to do this; it will help, but it will not provide sufficient spur for every region to
reach its 2020 target.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Table 5. 2020 Efficiency Code Water Savings – GPCD
Hydrologic Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River SJ
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Residential - Indoor 5 5 5 4 8 7 6 5 5 5 5
Residential - Outdoor 0 0 0 0 10 9 5 0 0 1 2
CII 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Total savings GPCD 7 7 7 6 19 17 12 7 6 6 8
Baseline GPCD 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 192
Percent of Baseline GPCD 4% 5% 4% 3% 7% 7% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4%
2020 Population ( Million) 0.8 7.0 1.7 22.5 3.6 2.8 3.0 0.1 1.4 1.2 44.1
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water
19
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
20
Table 6. 2020 Water Savings from Cost- Effective Measures – GPCD
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River
San
Joaquin
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Residential - Indoor 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Large landscape ( BMP 5) 1 4 2 4 0 3 1 4 7 40 4
CII 2 7 5 7 0 1 1 3 2 4 5
Non- Revenue Water 0 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total savings GPCD @ 100%
compliance 4 15 9 17 0 3 2 7 9 44 13
Total savings GPCD @ 80%
compliance 3 12 8 13 0 3 2 6 8 36 11
Baseline GPCD 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 192
Percent of Baseline GPCD @
80% compliance 2% 8% 5% 7% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 10% 6%
2020 Population ( Million) 0.8 7.0 1.7 22.5 3.6 2.8 3.0 0.1 1.4 1.2 44.1
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions
( Additional Measures)
Current actions alone will not achieve the state’s 20 percent reduction goal by 2020.
However, the goal can be achieved through a combination of current and new actions. For
this 20x2020 Plan, many potential measures were considered. The following categories of
measures are recommended for the initial focus of state action and support based on
potential water savings and feasibility of implementation:
􀁹 Efficient clothes washers
􀁹 Residential weather- based irrigation controllers
􀁹 Grant funding
􀁹 Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs
􀁹 Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3
􀁹 Landscape practices
􀁹 New technologies
􀁹 Recycled water
Table 7 combines all the savings estimates developed for the 20x2020 Plan. Efficient
clothes washers, residential weather- based irrigation controllers and grant funding are
considered as “ Basic Measures” in Table 7, along with efficiency code changes and cost
effective water conservation measures; many water suppliers are already implementing such
programs and are expected to continue to support those activities. Accelerated coverage
goals, reduction in non- revenue water, landscape practices, new technologies and recycled
water are considered “ Additional Measures” in Table 7.
Efficient clothes washers
The California Energy Commission ( CEC) adopted water efficiency standards for
clothes washers in 2004. It is a tiered standard based on the “ water factor” of the clothes
washer, which is the number of gallons per cubic foot of drum capacity. Conventional
washers have a water factor of about 13.3. In 2007, the maximum water factor to be allowed
was 8.5. By 2010 the standard would have been further reduced to 6.0. Federal approval is
still required, as the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 allows only the federal government
to regulate residential clothes washers, pre- empting state standards, unless a state waiver is
approved. California has requested such a waiver and continues to press for federal approval.
Several MOU signatories since 2005 have begun to promote efficient clothes washers
through rebate programs ( BMP 6), and market forces are also transforming the appliances
retailers are offering to consumers. The impact of all these factors remains uncertain and
difficult to model. Savings were estimated in the following way: First, savings were
estimated assuming that the above mentioned efficiency code had gone into effect as
intended; but then this estimate was halved under the assumption that active rebate programs
and natural turnover will produce half the savings efficiency codes would have realized by
2020. This “ half” estimate roughly works out to two to three GPCD.
Residential weather- based irrigation controllers
Studies have shown that landscape irrigation is frequently inefficient and, in some
cases, a high percentage of residential landscape irrigation is wasted as a result of over-watering,
poor design and poor maintenance. The analysis assumed that the top quarter of
single- family homes in terms of landscape area can be cost- effectively fitted with weather-
21
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
based irrigation controllers that take much of the “ guess- work” out of scheduling and
determining the needed quantities of water. Many suppliers are experimenting with this
measure even though it is not specifically included in any BMP. Savings from this measure
are conservatively estimated to be 3 to 4 GPCD by 2020.
Grant funding
Estimates of likely additional savings from grant funding to promote water
conservation were included in the analysis, with input from the Comprehensive Evaluation.
The scenario assumes that $ 30 million per year would be available between 2005 and 2014,
and $ 7.5 million per year thereafter until 2020. Grant funding savings estimates are based on
the assumption in the Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation that grant funding
will induce the implementation of measures that are cost- effective from a statewide
perspective but not from a local perspective, and will reimburse the cost increment between
local and statewide cost- effectiveness.
Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs
Instead of implementing BMPs within the existing voluntary framework, all water
suppliers or others could be required to implement certain basic conservation measures,
regardless of cost- effectiveness, to meet a maximum coverage goal. For example, all
residential or commercial buildings could be required to have efficient toilets, urinals, and
showerheads by 2020. This would force fixture replacement even in regions where the
avoided cost of water is still perceived to be low. This would generate additional savings
since active programs and natural turnover are not expected to raise the saturation of these
devices to 100 percent by 2020.
For the purpose of quantification, the following measures and corresponding 2020
coverage goals have been included in the list of affected BMPs:
􀁹 Saturation of inefficient toilets and urinals in residential and commercial buildings to
drop below 5 percent in each hydrologic region.
􀁹 Saturation of inefficient showerheads to drop below 5 percent in each region ( this is
expected to happen due to natural turnover anyway, so including this requirement does
not contribute incremental savings, but was included to ensure that such a basic item
automatically becomes subject to a field verification program).
􀁹 Efficient clothes washer saturation to reach a level it would have in the presence of the
State’s efficiency code ( roughly 85 percent).
􀁹 All unmetered urban connections to be converted to metered connections before 2020.
􀁹 Non- revenue water is to be brought down to no more than 10 percent of total production
where at present it is greater than 10 percent— BMP 3 would be mandatory.
Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3
There is significant opportunity for water use reductions related to leak detection and
repair in water delivery systems. The new water audit structure promoted by the American
Water Works Association and being discussed by the CUWCC includes a more rigorous
standard than BMP 3. Most utilities currently use a percentage of production to evaluate
losses, but expression of losses as gallons per connection provides a measure that is easier to
relate to usage.
BMP 3, which aims to reduce non- revenue water to 10 percent of production, has
already been analyzed in previous sections. However, these goals can be exceeded, as other
22
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
countries have demonstrated. For example, in the United Kingdom the target for
unaccounted water is 30 gallons per connection per day. Many communities in the United
Kingdom and Europe are at or below 40 gallons per connection per day. If a similar goal
were to be pursued in California, water savings from a low of 2 GPCD for Central Coast to a
high of 21 GPCD for the Colorado River regions could be achieved.
Better information on reduction in non- revenue water will become available as more
water suppliers use the new AWWA water audit structure.
Landscape practices
There are many actions that may be taken to improve landscape water use efficiency.
Professional landscape and irrigation design, proper installation, careful maintenance and
management of the site, and the selection of high quality irrigation equipment are some of
the factors that can influence the efficient use of water in the landscape. Dedicated landscape
meters, establishment of landscape water budgets and associated budget- based rate
structures, the performance of irrigation audits, public information programs, technical
training for landscape professionals, the use of alternative sources of water in the landscape,
and a multitude of rebate programs to support conversion from lawns to water- smart plants
and irrigation equipment are examples of actions that can be taken along with or in place of
irrigation restrictions.
It is essential for state government to lead a comprehensive suite of programs to
improve landscape water use efficiency in California in order to achieve the Governor’s
water use efficiency goal. Such an effort would yield many other benefits such as improved
water quality, reduced energy use and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, more
stormwater capture, and less production of green waste.
For the purposes of this 20x2020 Plan, landscape water savings are based upon
estimates related to irrigation restrictions. Irrigation restrictions can be a very useful tool for
reducing water use, especially in the high demand summer months and in the warmer
regions of the state. In many areas, water use doubles when customers start to irrigate their
landscapes. Many utilities use irrigation restrictions during a prolonged drought or when
water reservoirs run low. In practice, restricting irrigation to one day per week would
probably require some major changes. In most parts of the state, lawns can do well with
twice weekly irrigation, but not as well with once weekly irrigation.
While irrigation restrictions have been used to estimate savings, local water suppliers
have many program options for reducing landscape irrigation and conserving water.
Irrigation restrictions may result in some landscape maintenance challenges and customer
complaints, making implementation more difficult. In some locations, irrigation restrictions
have been combined with subsidies for turf removal. This results in some customers
reducing irrigation by changing landscape choices from turfgrass to native or other plant
species adapted to the California climate of winter rains and a summer dry season. Such
“ cash for grass” programs have been implemented successfully in California and other
states.
Ideally, a water supplier will be able to use a variety of methods— including customer
education, incentives, and enforcement— to achieve landscape water savings, rather than a
single inflexible tool such as an irrigation restriction. The goal is reasonable use by each
customer, and landscapes that are designed, installed, and maintained to be water- efficient.
Using twice weekly watering as a surrogate for a range of landscape conservation
programs that could be implemented at the local level, savings are estimated to be between
23
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
11 and 40 GPCD depending on the region. If irrigation were restricted to once per week,
then the range would be 20 to 73 GPCD.
New technologies
CUWCC screened several new conservation technologies between 2004 and 2007.
Savings were estimated for the following:
􀁹 On- premise laundries ( e. g., hotels, hospitals, universities, prisons, etc.)
􀁹 Building cooling systems
􀁹 Efficient residential dishwashers for new construction
􀁹 Vehicle wash systems
􀁹 Residential hot water distribution systems for new construction
􀁹 Commercial ice machines
􀁹 Waterless urinals
Finally, there are additional technologies, each with small individual impacts that can
generate some additional savings. For example, there are savings from replacing inefficient
urinals with high- efficiency urinals ( HEUs using 0.5 gallons per flush). But if waterless
urinals are used as replacements instead of HEUs, savings would roughly increase by an
additional 0.2 GPCD by 2020. Savings from other devices, such as pressurized water brooms
and dry vacuum pumps, could contribute roughly 0.1 GPCD. Total impact from all these
myriad conservation measures can thus be expected to roughly equal 2 GPCD, which is what
was used in the final accounting, presented in Table 7.
Recycled water
Data from DWR and SWRCB were used to quantify the amount of recycled water
likely to be available in each region for offsetting urban use by 2020. The recently- adopted
SWRCB water recycling policy is anticipated to increase the use of recycled water
throughout the state. Since only potable water is considered in the GPCD calculations in this
20x2020 Plan, increasing the use of recycled water will result in lower per capita use when it
replaces an otherwise potable demand. Such an approach, if incorporated into statute, would
help encourage greater use of recycled water.
Putting it all together
Table 7 combines all the savings estimates developed for this 20x2020 Plan, including
savings from current actions ( Basic Measures) as well as savings from future actions
( Additional Measures). Basic Measures are those that are already being implemented by
water suppliers and could be adopted by those that have not aggressively pursued
conservation until now. Basic Measures include the minimum activities expected within
each region. Additional Measures are those that can be pursued to meet the regional targets
when the Basic Measures alone do not meet the regional targets. The savings estimates from
the first group, Basic Measures, were used to derive the regional targets described in the next
section.
In the development of Table 7 considerable care was taken to prevent double- counting
of savings. For example, savings estimates from code and from cost- effective
implementation of BMPs reflect separate increments of savings. Grant- funded savings, while
obtained from implementation of existing BMPs, count only the savings that would not
already be obtained through codes and implementation of cost- effective measures. Savings
attributed to irrigation restrictions only reflect the savings from the single- family residential
24
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
25
sector; large- landscape programs are included separately. Savings from conservation rate
structures and the Model Landscape Ordinance are not included in Table 7 to avoid any
possibility of double- counting. The only exception is savings attributable to smart irrigation
controllers, which is included.
An important conclusion from Table 7 is that a 20 percent reduction in per capita use is
achievable. By pursuing more widespread implementation of existing measures, and
implementing well- documented new measures, California can reduce its per capita use rate
20 percent by 2020.
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Table 7. Summary of 2020 Savings from All Evaluated Measures – GPCD
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River
San
Joaquin
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Savings From Basic Measures
Code 7 7 7 6 19 17 12 7 6 6 8
80% of local CE 3 12 8 13 0 3 2 6 8 36 11
Grant funded 11 1 12 1 3 8 13 15 24 8 4
Efficient clothes washers 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Residential ET controllers 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
TOTAL ( basic measures) 28 26 32 24 28 33 32 36 43 56 28
Savings From Additional Measures
Accelerated coverage goals 11 8 10 7 17 13 14 14 17 17 9
Recycling 4 7 1 4 3 1 6 3
Water loss control ( 40
g/ conn./ day) 3 2 2 4 11 11 15 11 10 21 6
Irrigation restrictions ( 2
day/ week) 11 11 11 13 23 22 25 11 29 40 16
Miscellaneous PBMPs 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL ( additional measures) 31 30 26 29 56 48 57 38 58 86 37
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water.
26
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Statewide Targets
The development of per capita use targets was the most difficult task in this 20x2020
Plan. This effort yielded insights that may help the Legislature as it works to incorporate the
20 percent reduction goal into statute. These insights are discussed more fully in Chapter 3.
The variations within the data provided, the lack of data from many water suppliers,
and the limited scope of this planning effort meant that an analysis of GPCD on an agency-by-
agency basis was not possible. However, there was enough information on a regional
( hydrologic region) basis to evaluate trends and provide initial target methodologies. The
aim is to use these regional targets as an example of how targets might vary by region
according to base year water use, past conservation practices, and current per capita use. Any
subsequent effort to establish targets for individual suppliers would need to incorporate
additional information on factors such as past conservation, customer base, and climate.
The conservation targets for the interim year ( 2015) are not a linear interpolation
between the baseline and the final goal. An interim conservation target, equivalent to
50 percent of the expected savings, would allow time for water suppliers to incorporate the
20x2020 Plan goals into their conservation program activities. A conservation target of a
statewide 20 percent reduction from the baseline was defined for year 2020, by which time
all suppliers should be able to implement the conservation programs necessary to achieve the
statewide 20 percent reduction goal.
The statewide baseline water use value, expressed in gallons per capita per day
( GPCD), is 192 GPCD. The corresponding statewide targets are:
􀁹 Interim Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 10 percent =
173 GPCD
􀁹 Final Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 20 percent =
154 GPCD.
Based on a 2005 population of about 37 million and per capita use of 192 GPCD, total
urban use would be about 7.9 MAF per year, and the annual statewide savings would be
about 1.59 MAF. According to the California Water Plan Update 2005, total urban water
use for the most recent normal hydrologic year ( 2000) was 8.9 MAF. A 20 percent reduction
in this level of use would be 1.78 MAF. These amounts are the projected 2020 savings
attributable to the 2005 population.
As the population grows between 2005 and 2020, per capita use associated with new
growth is expected to be lower than baseline per capita use, even without implementation of
this 20x2020 Plan, because new dwellings will have the latest in efficient fixtures,
appliances, and landscapes. Implementation of this plan will further reduce the per capita use
of new residents due to measures such as public information and outreach, and conservation
pricing. This increment of savings has not been separately estimated, but it is likely the
actual 2020 savings would be more than 1.59- 1.78 MAF per year.
Figure 6 below summarizes the regional targets. Detailed step- by- step explanation and
equation of the methodology used to determine these targets are included in Appendix B.
27
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
28
Table 8. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
Interim Targets ( 2015) 151 144 139 165 215 211 237 208 204 278
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211
Figure 6. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
Table 9 shows each region’s progress in meeting planning targets with the
implementation of basic measures and, if necessary, implementation of additional measures.
The statewide column in this table shows the result in 2020. By this time, population growth
will have occurred in each region, with a larger share of population growth occurring in
regions with higher per capita use. Thus, the no- action baseline would rise from 192 GPCD
currently to 199 GPCD in 2020.
By 2020, through prompt aggressive action and sustained effort, California can reduce
its per capita use by more than 20 percent. Only one region would be unable to meet its
target after implementing the measures described in this plan, the Tulare Lake region. Even
though one region is projected to fall short of its target, that shortage will likely be offset by
savings in other regions.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Table 9. Achievement of Targets by Region, 2020
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Statewide
2020
Result
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 199
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211 154
Desired savings 28 26 31 31 77 74 97 70 67 135 45
Total savings ( basic measures) 28 26 32 24 28 33 32 36 43 56 28
2020 Savings shortfall after implementing basic
measures - - - 7 49 41 65 34 24 79 17
Total savings available ( additional measures) 31 30 26 29 56 48 57 38 58 86 37
2020 Shortfall still remaining after implementing
additional measures - - - - - - 8 - - - -
29
Chapter 3. Recommendations
Chapter 3. Recommendations
California can achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020.
The analyses described in Chapter 2, as summarized in Table 7, show that basic conservation
measures including implementation of BMPs, codes, and ordinances will produce significant
savings, and in some regions of the state, most of the water savings sought by the 20 percent
statewide target. Nevertheless, these actions will be insufficient to achieve the target for
most regions. To achieve the Governor’s goal, some new actions will be needed. Legislation
or additional secure funding will be needed to ensure that these measures are implemented.
A long- term statewide strategic approach with conservation targets mandated by statute and
an array of new measures available to water suppliers and regions is needed to achieve the
goal.
California can achieve this ambitious goal only if state agencies, regions, and local
water suppliers take prompt and aggressive action. Recommended actions to contribute
toward a statewide strategic approach ( as described in more detail in this chapter) fall into
the following categories:
1. Establish a foundation for a statewide Conservation Strategy.
a. Establish targets and goals in statute.
b. Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework.
c. Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation.
d. Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database.
e. Maintain existing programs and institutions.
2. Reduce landscape irrigation demand.
a. Require water- efficient landscapes at state- owned properties.
b. Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and
irrigation programs and the development of new landscape programs.
c. Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP.
3. Reduce waste.
a. Accelerate installation of water meters.
b. Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy.
c. Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies and
accelerate coverage goals.
4. Reinforce efficiency codes and related BMPs.
a. Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washers.
b. Support landscape irrigation equipment standards.
c. Accelerate replacement of inefficient showerheads, toilets and urinals.
d. Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses.
5. Provide financial incentives.
a. Encourage or mandate conservation water pricing.
b. Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water suppliers and
customers.
c. Establish a public goods charge for water.
d. Fund the installation of water meters.
31
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
6. Implement a statewide conservation public information and outreach campaign.
7. Provide new or exercise existing enforcement mechanisms to facilitate water
conservation.
a. Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state
financial assistance.
b. Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water.
c. Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers.
8. Investigate potential flexible implementation measures.
a. Investigate requiring conservation offsets for water demand generated by new
development.
b. Investigate establishment of a cap- and- trade regime.
9. Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water.
Establish a foundation for a statewide conservation strategy
Establish targets and goals in statute
The 20 percent goal for reducing water consumption by 2020 is achievable. However,
without additional work to establish local targets and a firm requirement to achieve the
savings, track progress, and define consequences for suppliers or regions that fail to meet
targets, California is not likely to achieve the goal set by the Governor.
The Agency Team’s efforts to develop a planning approach to target- setting, the public
feedback received on this draft approach, and the public discussions regarding AB 2175
( Laird, 2008), which would have established conservation targets, all provide valuable
insights into target- setting legislation. The following criteria should guide the structure of
legislation to place the Governor’s goal into statute:
􀁹 All water suppliers should be treated consistently, and targets should be equitable.
􀁹 The approach to target- setting should be kept as simple as possible.
􀁹 The target- setting approach should take into account past conservation efforts by
suppliers or regions.
􀁹 Differences in climate should be taken into account.
􀁹 The law should allow flexibility in implementation to the greatest extent possible.
􀁹 The law should accommodate, encourage and support emerging regional water
management entities and allow regional compliance.
􀁹 Separate approaches are necessary for residential water use— as opposed to commercial,
industrial and institutional water use— to accommodate unique local conditions.
􀁹 The legislation should allow and encourage implementation of the most cost- effective
measures through mechanisms such as regional compliance that would permit an
incremental step toward a cap- and- trade approach.
􀁹 Some regions and water suppliers will need to achieve more conservation than others,
due to varying levels of past conservation implementation.
􀁹 The legislation should establish deadlines for compliance, as well as consequences for
failure to comply.
In November 2009 California placed the 20x2020 goal into statute with the enactment
of SBX7 7 ( Steinberg), part of an historic package of water reforms.
32
Chapter 3. Recommendations
Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework
Several state agencies have responsibility or authority over different aspects of water
management. Better communication and coordination among these agencies, and designation
of a lead agency will be important aspects of implementing the 20x2020 Plan and assuring
its success. The lead agency should coordinate and organize a framework for agency
implementation efforts; use combined agency data sources to measure progress toward
meeting the Governor’s goal; seek the advice of a stakeholder panel regarding program
refinement and implementation; coordinate assistance programs to help regions and
communities achieve targeted savings; communicate implementation success to the public
and to stakeholders; alert water suppliers and regions that are not meeting targets; and
recommend additional actions that may be needed to meet the goal.
The Agency Team evaluated each agency’s ability to lead a specific task under this
20x2020 Plan, and also identified the expected outcome of such tasks. Some of the tasks are
already being performed by certain agencies. It is not anticipated that the existing authorities
of different involved agencies will be consolidated into one agency to implement this
20x2020 Plan. However, it probably will be necessary to appoint one agency with an overall
lead and coordination role.
In conjunction with this lead agency, each involved state agency will be responsible for
implementing and tracking components of the 20x2020 Plan that fall within the purview of
its authority. For example, the CPUC has regulatory oversight of investor- owned utilities;
the SWRCB enforces water rights and constitutional prohibitions on waste and unreasonable
use; the CEC has regulatory authority over water use efficiency standards for appliance and
equipment; the DPH has authority for enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
regulates potable water treatment and delivery by all public water systems; and DWR has
planning and conservation monitoring authority, as well as influence over the disbursement
of grants and loans. Closer state interagency coordination will be needed to facilitate data
management, program implementation, and statute enforcement.
The lead agency with the cooperation of participating agencies should:
􀁹 Coordinate and organize agency implementation efforts
􀁹 Use combined agency data sources to measure progress toward meeting the Governor’s
goal
􀁹 Communicate implementation success to the public and to stakeholders
􀁹 Encourage water suppliers to expand and strengthen implementation of water
conservation programs and recycled water programs
􀁹 Expand state technical assistance programs to help suppliers and regions implement
voluntary or elective local programs
􀁹 Alert water suppliers and regions that are not meeting targets
􀁹 Finalize a measurement and evaluation plan ( performance metrics) to assess whether
2015 and 2020 regional targets have been met
􀁹 Recommend additional actions that may be needed to meet the goal.
DWR should serve as the lead agency. DWR is currently responsible for updating the
California Water Plan, disbursing grants for integrated regional water management,
promoting water conservation, and reviewing urban water management plans.
In addition, there is a need for closer coordination with federal agencies, the CUWCC,
IRWM Planning Groups and water suppliers, all of whom will play a role in the successful
implementation of the 20x2020 Plan. Where membership organizations such as the CUWCC
33
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
provide technical assistance or other program support, these efforts should receive financial
support. Table 10 shows potential agency roles for the implementation.
Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation
One valuable recommendation made during public review of the draft of this plan was
to establish a stakeholder advisory group. The Agency Team intends to implement this
recommendation by establishing a group that can meet periodically and offer guidance on
refinement and implementation of this plan.
Table 10. Agency Roles for Key Implementation Activities
Program Task Key Agencies Activities
20x2020 Administration DWR Management, coordination, analysis, reporting
Data Management DWR, SWRCB, DPH,
CPUC, CEC,
CUWCC
Coordinate with other agencies to ascertain
overall data requirements. Design and
maintain an electronic data submission
system
Design regional strategies for
achieving regional targets
DWR, SWRCB,
Regional water
management entities
Assess baseline GPCD by supplier,
conservation programs undertaken to date,
and what tools will take the region to its target
GPCD
Identify new legislation and
regulations required
DWR, SWRCB,
CUWCC
Develop proposed text for each legislation
and regulation
Appropriate grant funding DWR, SWRCB Interact with legislature to generate a reliable
revenue stream for promoting water
conservation
Landscape water conservation DWR, SWRCB, CEC,
CUWCC
Establish a range of new programs to promote
landscape water conservation
Outreach DWR, SWRCB,
CUWCC
Inform water suppliers about the Program’s
requirements. Obtain feedback from
stakeholders
Public education DWR, CUWCC Design and implement a general public
education campaign emphasizing water
conservation
Metering DWR, SWRCB, DPH,
CPUC
Develop and implement programs to expedite
metering
Appliance efficiency standards CEC, DWR Promote higher appliance efficiency
standards.
Other potable water offsets DWR, SWRCB, DPH Promote the use of recycled water, storm-water
capture, and gray- water
Coordinate with AB 32 Scoping
Plan implementation
ARB, DWR, SWRCB,
CEC, CPUC
Ensure that conservation implementation is
mindful of GHG reductions to comply with
AB 32
Improve coordination between
water and land use agencies
DWR, SWRCB, ARB Work with water suppliers and local
governments to coordinate actions;
recommend improvements.
Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database
California currently lacks a consistent method of collecting water data from local water
suppliers. Water data is collected by different state agencies based on their individual
program needs, which leads to overlaps and gaps between the databases. This has been an
34
Chapter 3. Recommendations
obstacle in the data analysis and per capita water use calculations during the development of
the baseline and target numbers. It is recommended that California mandate submittal of
water use and conservation data. Submittal of the data should be coordinated among state
agencies to reduce reporting burdens on local water suppliers.
A uniform streamlined data collection process would have multiple advantages: the
reporting burden on local agencies would be reduced, data reviews related to state action
such as grant disbursement would be expedited, state agencies would have more timely
access to water use data, the quality and accuracy of the data would improve, better and
more complete data would facilitate better water management; and data management costs
would be reduced over time.
At a minimum, suppliers should disaggregate and report usage according to the
following sectors:
􀁹 Single family residential
􀁹 Multi- family residential
􀁹 Commercial
􀁹 Institutional
􀁹 Industrial
􀁹 Dedicated irrigation
􀁹 System water losses
􀁹 Recycled water
As shown in Table 10, data on water supply and demand are managed by five state
agencies, as well as CUWCC. Much of the data collected are unique to the needs of each
agency or CUWCC, and the reporters of data ( mainly water suppliers and water right
holders) do not submit data to all agencies or CUWCC. Data submittal to some state
agencies such as DWR is voluntary, while submittal to other state agencies such as DPH is
mandated by law. Where there is overlap in data needs, common definitions and formats for
submittal of data should be established. There is a need to incorporate the data that is
collected into electronic databases to make the data available for sharing, analysis, and the
administration of the respective programs of the agencies and CUWCC. A centralized
database or data entry web portal for the state agencies with data entry forms customized to
meet the needs of individual agencies and programs could facilitate data sharing and allow
data common to more than one agency to be entered only once by a data reporter. While
CUWCC is not a state agency, coordination with CUWCC would assist in common efforts to
collect data. The following is recommended:
􀁹 Initiate coordination and standardization of data collection
􀁹 Evaluate the feasibility of creating a centralized database or portal for water supply and
demand data.
􀁹 Where there are gaps in the data currently being collected, exercise existing regulatory
authority or seek legislation to require the submittal of the needed data.
􀁹 Establish cost sharing and funding sources to facilitate development and maintenance of
data management systems.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1404 enacted in 2007, the SWRCB— in collaboration
with DWR, DPH, and CALFED— is preparing a report to be submitted to the Legislature in
2009 to evaluate the feasibility, estimated costs, and potential means of financing
coordinated water measurement. This report, when it becomes available, may be valuable in
fulfilling the recommendations above.
However, this type of costly endeavor is not essential to begin the process of
improving data collection and management. Implementation of an improved data collection
35
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
and management process can occur incrementally. For example, DWR should automate the
submittal of summary information from mandated Urban Water Management Plans and
structure data submittal to be consistent with its voluntary Public Water System Survey.
DWR could also provide guidance on standardized methods of GPCD calculation. This
would provide more timely information from water management plans, encourage submittal
of annual water use information, improve the consistency of information received, and
expedite DWR grant application review under AB 1420.
Other simple data management tools are available. An example of such tool is the
GPCD Calculator that was recently developed for the New Mexico Office of the state
Engineer. This calculator introduces a consistent methodology that could standardize data
collection and GPCD calculations. Water suppliers can use the calculator to develop or
refine service area population estimates, calculate per capita use for various water use
sectors, and calculate total system per capita use.
Maintain existing programs and institutions
As new programs, policies, and laws are established to support the achievement of a
20 percent reduction in per capita water use, existing effective programs should continue.
Examples of current programs include CEC’s appliance efficiency standard setting, DWR’s
California Irrigation Management Information System ( CIMIS), and the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Effective institutions such as the CUWCC will also need to
continue and expand their role in water use efficiency, with necessary financial support.
Reduce landscape irrigation demand
Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and
irrigation programs and the development of new landscape efficiency programs
Landscape water use has the greatest potential for reduction of any urban water use
sector. According to the California Water Plan Update 2005, approximately one- third of all
urban water use is dedicated to landscape irrigation. Other sources put the number as high as
50 percent. The recently updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, when
complied with as written, will reduce irrigation by roughly 12 percent relative to the earlier
Ordinance. A recent survey of compliance with the original state law requiring local
ordinances showed that many local agencies failed to comply with state law or are only
partially in compliance. A much more vigorous information and outreach effort and perhaps
other enforcement incentives will be needed to ensure that the new ordinance achieves its
potential efficiency improvements. In particular, greater communication and coordination
between local governments and local water suppliers is urgently needed.
The revised Model Ordinance will help to ensure that new landscapes are designed to
be efficient. Certain provisions of the Model Ordinance also encourage greater efficiency in
the irrigation of existing landscapes. However, by itself, the model ordinance may do little to
transform existing high- water- using landscapes, or persuade Californians to choose the most
efficient new landscape designs. Because landscape water conservation offers so much
potential for increased efficiency, a vigorous comprehensive program to improve landscape
water use efficiency will be essential to ensure that the governor’s efficiency goal is met.
Programs based on information, education, additional research, and voluntary changes in
landscaping can be effective and are preferable. Enforcement of the new Model Ordinance
or its equivalent is expected. Additional mandatory restrictions such as two- day- per- week
36
Chapter 3. Recommendations
irrigation have a higher certainty of effectiveness, but would limit options and reduce
flexibility.
Voluntary elements of a comprehensive program should include:
􀁹 Working with landscape architecture curriculum programs to ensure that future
landscape architects have the knowledge to design landscapes and irrigation systems that
are efficient, as well as more suited to California’s climate and conditions
􀁹 Widespread training programs for professional landscape maintenance contractors on
water use efficiency, system maintenance and improvements
􀁹 Educational websites for consumers on landscape design, plant selection, irrigation
system installation and repair
􀁹 Widespread adoption of tiered rates structures or other conservation pricing
􀁹 Widespread installation of separate landscape meters for better information and water
management
􀁹 More irrigation auditor training programs, and more irrigation audit programs provided
by local water suppliers
􀁹 Better communication and coordination between water suppliers and local governments
to ensure consistent policies and programs related to water use efficiency
􀁹 Expansion of programs to promote the use of graywater and rainwater
􀁹 Support for rebate programs that fund improved landscape plantings, reduction of turf
areas, upgrades to irrigation systems and controllers
􀁹 Use of public building landscapes as local examples of good design, installation, and
maintenance
􀁹 Strong local and regional programs to encourage efficient new landscapes, replacement
of older inefficient landscapes, and better management of high- water- using plantings
such as turf
􀁹 Additional research and development of landscape conservation practices and methods.
Implementation of such a comprehensive program is ambitious and would require new
funding and program development at the state, regional, and local levels. Without the
necessary commitment of resources to successfully implement these voluntary programs,
landscape efficiency should be improved through mandates:
􀁹 Limit the irrigation of most landscapes to two days per week or less, in order to
encourage climate- appropriate landscapes, reduce the use of water for irrigation of
landscapes, and reduce the potential for over- irrigation of landscapes. This could be
accomplished through local ordinances, or as new state legislation.
Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP
The CUWCC provides a cooperative forum for the development and implementation
of BMPs. The BMPs are generally considered to be the minimum level of effort for a
credible water conservation program, but these practices are voluntary. AB 1420 ( Laird,
2007) requires implementation of conservation measures listed in the Water Code as a
prerequisite for access to grant funds, but water suppliers that are not applying for state
financial assistance are under no requirement to implement such measures.
In the case of landscape water conservation, implementation of appropriate
conservation practices yields so many benefits that it is worthwhile to consider making
implementation of such measures mandatory. The flexibility of BMP implementation would
not easily translate into mandates in the Water Code. A requirement might take the form of
37
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
mandated measures that are “ at least as effective as” the landscape BMPs. This is the
approach the Legislature has taken in requiring landscape ordinances for new construction.
Require water efficient landscapes at all state- owned properties
Establish a strict policy of low water using landscaping and efficient landscape
equipment at all state- owned or occupied buildings except for historic landscapes or
plantings that provide erosion control. Use state landscapes as examples and teaching tools
for locally- appropriate water- efficient design.
Reduce water waste
Water waste can be reduced by improving water measurement through expedited
installation of water meters, establishment of a standard for water meter accuracy, and the
improvement of detecting and repairing water delivery systems.
Accelerate installation of water meters
At present, state law requires that unmetered connections served by the CVP be
converted to metered connections by 2013, and non- CVP unmetered connections be
converted by January 1, 2025. This law applies to community water systems serving
3,000 connections or more.
All progress comes from careful measurement. Metering of water deliveries is essential
to obtain valid data about consumption and water waste, and to promote water conservation
programs. Communities that do not meter water deliveries will likely find it impossible to
meet reasonable consumption targets. Accordingly, it is recommended that the state
accelerate meter installation and facilitate more widespread metering of small water systems.
It is recommended that California enact legislation to move the state metering deadline from
2025 to 2020.
In addition, the following incentives and disincentive should be considered to
accelerate metering:
􀁹 Provide incentives such as access to additional grant funds for unmetered suppliers that
complete metering before the deadline or suppliers that install improved “ smart” meter
systems, with particular attention to disadvantaged communities
􀁹 Require regions with unmetered connections to dedicate a defined percentage of regional
water management funds to metering.
􀁹 Pursue economic stimulus funds to accelerate metering.
􀁹 Support legislation for additional conservation requirements for suppliers that are not
fully metered.
Metering is the foundation for measuring consumption as well as detecting waste. The
state must continue to push for near universal metering in its urban water systems which
account for the majority of potable water use, and also begin to improve the incidence of
metering in smaller systems and rural areas.
Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy
Water meters generally meet a high standard of accuracy when they are manufactured
and initially calibrated. However, meters tend to become less accurate over time as they are
used and parts begin to wear. Most often, worn meters under- register the volume of water
delivered. This reduces revenue for the water supplier and provides faulty information to the
consumer.
38
Chapter 3. Recommendations
The American Water Works Association has established voluntary standards for meter
accuracy. Some other western states such as Colorado, Idaho, and Texas require minimum
standards of accuracy for meters in use. California should consider meter accuracy standards
written into code at no less than +/- 2.5 percent.
Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies
In every hydrologic region, well above 10 percent of urban potable water produced is
unaccounted for ( non- revenue water). This may include system leaks, meter errors,
emergency use ( e. g., fire fighting), and/ or unauthorized use. The high proportion of non-revenue
water represents a major potential for reduction in urban water demand.
Leak detection methodologies have improved considerably and water suppliers can
reduce non- revenue water beyond levels stated in BMP 3. It is recommended that this BMP
be revised such that maximum allowable levels of non- revenue water are expressed in terms
of gallons per connection per day, instead of the present format where it is expressed in
terms of percentage of produced water. A standard of a maximum of 40 gallons per
connection per day is achievable by 2020.
Reinforce Efficiency Codes and related BMPs
As technology advances, water and energy use efficiency codes for appliances and
equipment should be established or strengthened.
Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washer
Continue the California appeal of the U. S. Department of Energy’s denial for a waiver
of federal preemption for the State’s water efficiency standards for residential clothes
washers. Once the waiver is approved, pursue a waiver to regulate commercial coin- operated
clothes washers.
Support landscape Irrigation equipment standards
Support CEC approval of landscape irrigation equipment standards and labeling
requirements, and follow with a variety of rebate and outreach programs to accelerate
upgrades of irrigation equipment installed in the state. AB 1881 ( Laird, 2006) requires that
the CEC develop efficiency standards for irrigation equipment including controllers,
irrigation heads, valves, and sensors. This effort is underway in 2009.
Accelerate replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and urinals
Older toilets do not meet the 1.6 gallon per flush standard. Toilets with a higher flush
volume— those designed to use 3.5 gallons and those installed before the advent of
efficiency standards— should be replaced with toilets using 1.6 gallons or toilets that meet
the new 1.28 gallon standard.
Support legislation to require replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and
urinals in both the residential and commercial/ industrial sectors. Potential approaches
include:
􀁹 Replacement of inefficient fixtures upon resale ( responsibility on property seller)
􀁹 Replacement of inefficient fixtures upon change of water service ( responsibility on new
water customer)
􀁹 Replacement of all inefficient fixtures by 2020 ( implemented in early years by rebate
programs and information campaigns)
39
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses
Research and evaluation has been completed by the CUWCC and others on a host of
water conservation technologies, including:
􀁹 On- premise laundries ( e. g., hotels, hospitals, universities, prisons, etc.)
􀁹 Building cooling systems
􀁹 Efficient residential dishwashers for new construction
􀁹 Vehicle wash systems
􀁹 Residential hot water distribution systems for new construction
􀁹 Commercial ice machines
Continue to support CUWCC research initiatives to develop reliable data on water
savings from emerging technologies, promote use of these technologies in the marketplace,
and support efficiency standards in law as needed.
Provide financial incentives

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

February 2010
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
20x2020
Water Conservation Plan
February 2010
This plan was prepared by:
􀂃 California Department of Water Resources
􀂃 State Water Resources Control Board
􀂃 California Bay- Delta Authority
􀂃 California Energy Commission
􀂃 California Department of Public Health
􀂃 California Public Utilities Commission
􀂃 California Air Resources Board
With assistance from:
􀂃 California Urban Water Conservation Council
􀂃 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
Preface
iii
Preface
In California, water is precious, competition for water is fierce, and conservation is
critical. The value that Californians place on water is reflected in a constitutional provision
ensuring its reasonable and beneficial use. Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution
prohibits the waste and unreasonable use of this precious resource. All water within the state is
the property of the state, but the right to use water may be acquired under California law. To
manage competition for scarce water supplies, California has an appropriative water right
system that provides for the orderly development of the state's water resources while
safeguarding against waste and unreasonable use.
Despite constitutional provisions prohibiting waste and a system of water rights to manage
allocations, water conservation has always been important. California has a long history of laws,
policies and practices that promote water conservation. Conservation and efficiency of water
usage are recognized least- cost strategies to help ensure a vital economy, a healthy
environment, and a high standard of living.
As our understanding, knowledge and technology improve, we have learned that our use
of water for given purposes can also improve. Statutes and policies have been instituted that
continually define our evolving abilities to do more with less water and begin to restore the
health of the natural water systems on which we so greatly depend. Yet, with a burgeoning
population and the movement of that population to drier climates, our overall demand for water
has exceeded our reliable developed supply. Without additional action, demand will continue to
exceed supply. The Delta is in crisis, drought has depleted our reservoirs and groundwater
resources are overdrafted. Our need to pursue conservation and eliminate unnecessary uses of
water is more important than ever to ensure the future health of our state.
Contents
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................ iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms.............................................................................................. viii
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... ix
20x2020 Plan Scope and Process........................................................................................... ix
Establishing a Baseline and Targets........................................................................................ x
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ xii
Implementation................................................................................................................. .. xiii
Year 2020 and Beyond........................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................... 1
Plan Scale and Scope............................................................................................................... 2
20x2020 Planning Process ...................................................................................................... 7
Summary of the Statewide Planning Effort.................................................................... 7
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets ........................................................ 11
Establishing a Baseline.......................................................................................................... 11
Supply and Demand Data............................................................................................. 12
Data Development........................................................................................................ 13
Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions ( Basic Measures)............................ 15
Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions ( Additional Measures) ........................ 21
Efficient clothes washers.............................................................................................. 21
Residential weather- based irrigation controllers.......................................................... 21
Grant funding ............................................................................................................... 22
Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs................................................................ 22
Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3........................................ 22
Landscape practices ..................................................................................................... 23
New technologies ......................................................................................................... 24
Recycled water ............................................................................................................. 24
Putting it all together.................................................................................................... 24
Statewide Targets .................................................................................................................. 27
Chapter 3. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 31
Establish a foundation for a statewide conservation strategy................................................ 32
Establish targets and goals in statute............................................................................ 32
Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework................................ 33
Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation ............... 34
Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database .......................... 34
Maintain existing programs and institutions ................................................................ 36
Reduce landscape irrigation demand..................................................................................... 36
Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and irrigation
programs and the development of new landscape efficiency programs....................... 36
Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP........................................................................ 37
Require water efficient landscapes at all state- owned properties................................. 38
Reduce water waste............................................................................................................... 38
Accelerate installation of water meters ........................................................................ 38
v
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy..................................................... 38
Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies........................... 39
Reinforce Efficiency Codes and related BMPs ..................................................................... 39
Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washer................ 39
Support landscape Irrigation equipment standards ...................................................... 39
Accelerate replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and urinals...................... 39
Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses ............. 40
Provide financial incentives ......................................................................................... 40
Encourage or mandate conservation pricing structures................................................ 40
Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water agencies................... 41
Establish a public goods charge to provide stable funding for water management ..... 41
Fund the installation of water meters ........................................................................... 42
Implement a statewide water conservation public information and outreach campaign....... 42
Provide Enforcement Mechanisms for Water Conservation ................................................. 43
Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state financial
assistance..................................................................................................................... 43
Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water ................ 44
Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers............................................ 44
Investigate Potential Flexible Implementation Measures...................................................... 44
Investigate requiring total or partial conservation offsets ............................................ 44
Investigate a cap- and- trade regime for water conservation.......................................... 45
Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water ............................. 45
Chapter 4. Implementation ........................................................................................... 47
Phase I. 20x2020 Plan Completion and Startup Actions ...................................................... 47
Phase II. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation and Adjustment............................. 48
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 48
Challenges to Monitoring Progress .............................................................................. 48
Annual Progress Reports.............................................................................................. 48
Adjustments ................................................................................................................. 49
Implementation Barriers and Recommendations ......................................................... 49
Phase III. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 50
Appendix A. References............................................................................................... 51
Appendix B. Determination of Regional Targets ....................................................... 53
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix C. Summary of Comments on Draft 20x2020 Plan and Responses....... 57
Figures
Figure ES- 1. California Hydrologic Regions .................................................................................. xi
Figure 1. California Hydrologic Regions ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. California Reference Evapotranspiration Zones Overlapping Hydrologic Regions ........ 6
Figure 3. 20x2020 Plan Development Process................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Regional Urban Water Use Patterns ............................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Single Family Residential Indoor/ Outdoor Baseline Distribution .................................. 15
Figure 6. Regional Urban Water Use Targets ................................................................................ 28
vi
Contents
Tables
Table ES- 1. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005 ................................................................. x
Table ES- 2. Regional Urban Water Use Targets.............................................................................. x
Table ES- 3. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline .................................................................... xiii
Table 1. List of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) ...................................................................... 9
Table 2. Dataset Strengths and Limitations.................................................................................... 12
Table 3. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005 ..................................................................... 13
Table 4. Per Capita Urban Water Use in California, 1995- 2005.................................................... 14
Table 5. 2020 Efficiency Code Water Savings – GPCD................................................................ 19
Table 6. 2020 Water Savings from Cost- Effective Measures – GPCD.......................................... 20
Table 7. Summary of 2020 Savings from All Evaluated Measures – GPCD................................. 26
Table 8. Regional Urban Water Use Targets.................................................................................. 28
Table 9. Achievement of Targets by Region, 2020........................................................................ 29
Table 10. Agency Roles for Key Implementation Activities ......................................................... 34
Table 11. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline .......................................................................... 47
Table 12. Implementation Barriers and Recommendations ........................................................... 50
Table B- 1. Regional Targets........................................................................................................... 56
Table C- 1. Agencies that Submitted Comments on Draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan ...... 57
Table C- 2. Comment Categories and State Agency Responses ..................................................... 59
vii
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
viii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
($/ AF) cost per unit of savings
20x2020 Plan 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
AB Assembly Bill
AF acre- foot
AFY acre- feet per year
ARB Air Resources Board
BMPs Best Management Practices
CALFED CALFED Bay- Delta Program
CBDA California Bay- Delta Authority
CE cost effective
CEC California Energy Commission
CII Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
CO Colorado
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVP Central Valley Project
DPH Department of Public Health
DWR Department of Water Resources
ET evapotranspiration
ETo reference evapotranspiration
GHG greenhouse gases
GPCD gallons per capita daily
GWh gigawatt hour
HCF hundreds of cubic feet
HETs high- efficiency toilets
HEUs high- efficiency urinals
HR hydrologic region
IRWM integrated regional water management
LWUP Land and Water Use Program
MAF million acre- feet
MG million gallons
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MW megawatt
PBMPs Potential Best Management Practices
PWSS Public Water Systems Survey
SB Senate Bill
SF San Francisco
SJ San Joaquin
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TM technical memoranda
ULFT ultra- low- flush toilet
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
UWMPs Urban Water Management Plans
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven- part comprehensive plan
for improving the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. As part of this effort, the Governor directed
state agencies to develop a plan to reduce statewide per capita urban water use by 20 percent by
the year 2020. This marked the initiation of the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan ( 20x2020
Plan) process.
California’s water resources are finite and now require managing for sustainability.
Multiple benefits can be realized as a result of more aggressive water conservation including:
􀁹 reduced stress on the environment of the beleaguered Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta
􀁹 delayed capital cost of new infrastructure to treat and deliver water
􀁹 reduced demand for wastewater treatment, including capital costs and ongoing treatment
costs
􀁹 reduced water- related energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions
􀁹 improved ability to meet environmental needs
􀁹 improvements in the quality of receiving waters related to reduced discharge
􀁹 reduced use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides and reduced escape of these chemicals
into surface waters through use of native plants and low water using varieties, reduced
production of green waste, and improved habitat value of urban landscapes
􀁹 enhanced flexibility in water management and delivery systems, especially during dry
periods
􀁹 better capacity to meet the challenge of California’s growing population.
California can reduce its per capita use 20 percent, from the current 192 gallons per capita
daily ( GPCD) to 154 GPCD. This amounts to an annual savings of about 1.59 million acre- feet
based on the savings achieved by California’s 2005 population.
20x2020 Plan Scope and Process
The 20x2020 Plan sets forth a statewide road map to maximize the state’s urban water
efficiency and conservation opportunities between 2009 and 2020, and beyond. It aims to set in
motion a range of activities designed to achieve the 20 percent per capita reduction in urban
water demand by 2020. These activities include improving an understanding of the variation in
water use across California, promoting legislative initiatives that incentivize water agencies to
promote water conservation, and creating evaluation and enforcement mechanisms to assure
regional and statewide goals are met. The 20x2020 Plan discusses these many activities in
detail.
This 20x2020 Plan was developed through the collaborative effort of an Agency Team,
which consisted of state and federal agencies including the Department of Water Resources
( DWR), State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), California Energy Commission
( CEC), Department of Public Health ( DPH), California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC),
Air Resources Board ( ARB), California Bay- Delta Authority ( CBDA), and the US Bureau of
Reclamation ( USBR). The Agency Team also developed research papers ( Technical
Memoranda) and solicited input from water suppliers and organizations through public
workshops and conference calls during the planning phase of the 20x2020 Plan. In addition, the
California Urban Water Conservation Council contributed toward the analysis and development
of this 20x2020 Plan.
Comments received through the public review process were used to modify and shape the
recommendations of this 20x2020 Plan.
ix
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Establishing a Baseline and Targets
The 2005 statewide baseline urban water use value, expressed in gallons per capita per
day ( GPCD), is 192 GPCD. The corresponding statewide targets are:
􀁹 Interim 2015 Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 10 percent =
173 GPCD
􀁹 Final 2020 Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 20 percent =
154 GPCD.
This represents a statewide savings of 1.59 million acre- feet ( MAF) based on a population
of 37 million. California can achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in 2005 per capita water use
by 2020.
Using ten hydrologic regions as defined by DWR for water resources planning purposes,
regional baseline and target values were derived for daily per capita water use.
Table ES- 1. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005
DWR Hydrologic Region
Sector Water Use ( GPCD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10
Residential ( Single- and Multi-
Family)
115 103 109 126 174 159 180 176 255
Commercial and Institutional 18 19 17 23 25 27 23 19 38
Industrial 8 17 8 9 21 32 43 11 3
Un- Reported Water 24 18 20 22 33 30 39 31 50
Total Baseline 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
* Region 8 does not have enough usable data in the Public Water Systems Survey ( PWSS) database to
compute for baseline values by sector.
Table ES- 2. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
DWR Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
Interim Targets ( 2015) 151 144 139 165 215 211 237 208 204 278
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211
x
Executive Summary
Figure ES- 1. California Hydrologic Regions
xi
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Recommendations
Recommended actions to contribute toward a statewide strategic approach ( as described in
more detail in Chapter 3) fall into the following categories:
1. Establish a foundation for a statewide Conservation Strategy.
a. Establish targets and goals in statute.
b. Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework.
c. Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation.
d. Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database.
e. Maintain existing programs and institutions.
2. Reduce landscape irrigation demand.
a. Require water- efficient landscapes at state- owned properties.
b. Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and irrigation
programs and the development of new landscape programs.
c. Mandate the landscape irrigation Best Management Practices ( BMP).
3. Reduce water waste.
a. Accelerate installation of water meters.
b. Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy.
c. Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies and
accelerate coverage goals.
4. Reinforce efficiency codes and related BMPs.
a. Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washers.
b. Support landscape irrigation equipment standards.
c. Accelerate replacement of inefficient showerheads, toilets and urinals.
d. Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses.
5. Provide financial incentives.
a. Encourage or mandate conservation water pricing.
b. Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water suppliers and
customers.
c. Establish a public goods charge for water.
d. Fund the installation of water meters.
6. Implement a statewide conservation public information and outreach campaign.
7. Provide new or exercise existing enforcement mechanisms to facilitate water
conservation.
a. Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state
financial assistance.
b. Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water.
c. Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers.
8. Investigate potential flexible implementation measures.
a. Investigate requiring conservation offsets for water demand generated by new
development.
b. Investigate establishment of a cap- and- trade regime.
9. Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water.
xii
Executive Summary
xiii
Implementation
The 20x2020 Plan will be implemented through three phases, as outlined in Table ES- 3.
In November 2009, California placed the 20x2020 goal into statute with the enactment of
SBX7 7 ( Steinberg), as part of an historic package of water reforms.
Table ES- 3. 20x2020 Plan Implementation Outline
Plan Phase Year Activities
I. 20x2020 Plan
Completion and Start-up
Actions
2009 – 2010 • Finalize 20x2020 Plan
• Establish a lead agency and coordination framework
• Convene a stakeholder advisory group
• Develop detailed implementation task descriptions for
recommended actions
• Provide technical assistance in conservation legislation
discussions
• Evaluate an interim data collection and management
mechanism
• Collect, manage and validate data
• Implement conservation actions
• Conduct legislative, regulatory and administrative actions
• Provide oversight
II. 20x2020 Plan
Implementation,
Monitoring, Evaluation,
Adjustments
2011 – 2020 • Establish interim and long- term data collection and
management
• Implement conservation actions
• Monitor implementation progress
• Assess and design additional measures such as a
conservation offset and a conservation credits trading
program as needed
• Conduct an Interim Target Assessment and Performance
Evaluation in 2015
III. Conclusion 2020 • Conduct a Final Target Assessment and Performance
Evaluation
• Publish Results and Lessons Learned
Year 2020 and Beyond
Water resources will continue to be scarce beyond 2020. An important factor to the
success of this 20x2020 Plan, from now through 2020 and beyond, relies on the fundamental
revolution of the way Californians view water. One of the many goals of this 20x2020 Plan is to
bring Californians to recognize that the water our lives depend on is indeed a very limited
resource, and that it must be used wisely, innovatively, responsibly, and efficiently. The success
of the 20x2020 Plan also demands political will to continue to invest and push to capture the
full extent of water conservation potential.
In succeeding, this 20x2020 Plan will not only bring benefits to California but will also
allow us to share this leadership and experience in the national and international efforts to
mitigate the global crisis of water deficiencies.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven- part comprehensive
plan for improving the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. The first element of the Governor’s
Delta plan is water conservation. In the Governor’s words, California must have:
“ A plan to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use
statewide by 2020. Conservation is one of the key ways to provide water for
Californians and protect and improve the Delta ecosystem. A number of
efforts are already underway to expand conservation programs, but I plan to
direct state agencies to develop this more aggressive plan and implement it to
the extent permitted by current law. I would welcome legislation to
incorporate this goal into statute.”
The Governor’s call for greater conservation is reflected in the work of the Delta
Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Vision and Strategic Plan of the Task Force call for
significantly greater implementation of water use efficiency measures to reduce water export
demands on the Delta and its struggling ecosystem and to improve environmental conditions
upstream and downstream of the Delta.
Delta protection and restoration are not the only reasons to increase conservation
efforts. Global climate change will affect water management in California, and water
conservation will help the state not only mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions but also adapt to climate change by reducing water use. Approximately one- fifth
of the electricity and one- third of the non- power plant natural gas consumed in the state are
associated with water delivery, treatment and use, so efficient use also can reduce water-related
energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Without this program,
water- related greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 would be higher than is currently forecast.
The Water Energy Subgroup of the Climate Action Team estimates that this plan will reduce
emissions by 1.4 million metric tons per year.
Water conservation is also an attractive water management strategy because it can
yield multiple benefits. Reduced demand can reduce or delay the capital cost of new
infrastructure to treat and deliver water. Reduced use also reduces the demand for
wastewater treatment, including capital costs and ongoing treatment costs. There may also
be improvements in the quality of receiving waters related to reduced discharge. Landscape
water conservation can yield multiple benefits including reduced use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides and reduced escape of these chemicals into surface waters through
use of native plants and low water using varieties, reduced production of green waste, and
improved habitat value of urban landscapes. These other benefits are particularly important
upstream of the Delta, where effluent discharge and over- application of irrigation water
often re- enter the natural system and the net water savings from landscape conservation is
lower than it is in areas that discharge to the ocean.
The California Water Plan acknowledges the importance of water conservation as an
element of statewide water management. The California Water Plan Update 2005, as well as
the draft California Water Plan Update 2009, identifies urban water conservation as the
water management strategy that will be most effective at matching supply and demand.
California needs a comprehensive plan to increase water use efficiency and achieve the
multiple benefits that accompany more efficient use, along with a comprehensive finance
plan that supports continuing investment in efficiency.
1
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
This 20x2020 Plan outlines recommendations to the Governor on content and
implementation of the requested “ more aggressive plan”. These recommendations were
developed through a collaborative effort of the Agency Team, involving several agencies
that are involved in water planning and management. The Agency Team consists of seven
state agencies and a federal agency: Department of Water Resources ( DWR), State Water
Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), California Energy Commission ( CEC), Department of
Public Health ( DPH), California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC), Air Resources Board
( ARB), California Bay- Delta Authority ( CBDA) and the US Bureau of Reclamation
( USBR). In addition, the California Urban Water Conservation Council contributed toward
the analysis and development of this 20x2020 Plan. Extensive public input has helped to
improve the plan and will be an important part of future refinement and implementation.
Achieving a 20 percent reduction in statewide per capita urban water use is a
challenging task. Achieving it by 2020 will require quick and concerted effort throughout the
state. However, the urgent threat of water deficiency and overdraft, water needs of the
environment, a growing population, and the unknown impact of climate change on water
supplies, requires that California move boldly to foster water conservation.
Conservation versus Efficiency
The terms water conservation and water use efficiency are often used interchangeably. As used in
this report, water conservation is defined as a reduction in water loss, waste, or use. The general
term water conservation may include water use efficiency, in which more water- related tasks are
accomplished with the same or lesser amounts of water.
When widespread conservation programs are implemented, water managers may
become concerned about demand hardening. This is the phenomenon in which customers
lose the ability to easily institute emergency conservation during drought or other crises
because they have already captured all their conservation savings. Although this is a
legitimate concern, California will still have ample conservation opportunity even after
statewide per capita use is reduced by 20 percent, through additional fixture and appliance
replacement, reductions in landscape irrigation, and habit change.
Plan Scale and Scope
To meet the Governor’s charge, the Agency Team has worked to develop the 20x2020
Plan that answers these questions:
􀁹 What is per capita urban use now or in some recent base period?
􀁹 What would the reduction in per capita use be when the Governor’s goal is met?
􀁹 How does per capita use vary across the state?
􀁹 How does the potential for additional conservation vary across the state?
􀁹 Is it feasible to expect that the Governor’s goal can be met?
􀁹 Will existing measures enable us to achieve the Governor’s goal? How does this vary by
region?
􀁹 Can we expect to achieve the goal with new measures? What would it take to implement
them?
􀁹 How might implementation ( and needed implementation assistance) vary by region?
This 20x2020 Plan is intended to be part of a comprehensive program to improve
water supply reliability, restore ecosystem health, and improve the Delta. California
must reduce its per capita water use. Other vital parts of a comprehensive program include
2
Chapter 1. Introduction
improved Delta conveyance, more water storage, and restoration of ecosystem health in the
Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta.
This 20x2020 Plan addresses only urban water use and conservation. To achieve a
reduction in overall water use while protecting the Delta’s ecosystem, it is recognized that
both urban and agricultural water use must be more efficient. The Governor’s charge was to
achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita use, which implies an urban focus. There are
many differences between California’s urban and agricultural supplies and demands. These
differences in water qualities and quantities, delivery systems, and other use characteristics,
coupled with different institutional and conservation mechanisms require that separate
mechanisms be developed to address the urban and agricultural sectors.
The focus on urban use here does not diminish the relevance of agricultural use to the
state’s total water use or the potential for significant reductions in overall state water use
from the agricultural sector. Urban water suppliers are required by statute to prepare and
periodically update urban water management plans. Efficiency programs are built on this
planning foundation. No comparable requirement exists for irrigation districts. Legislative
bills introduced to place the Governor’s 20x2020 goal into statute recognize the importance
of this planning foundation. Bills have also proposed new agricultural water management
planning requirements for irrigation districts that are parallel to the standards that have been
in place for urban suppliers since 1983. This balanced and comprehensive approach is a
sound water management strategy.
This 20x2020 Plan will be implemented consistent with water rights protections in
Water Code Section 1011. An appropriative water right holder does not lose the right to
water that is conserved. Water Code section 1011 allows an appropriator to retain the right to
water to the extent water is not used due to water conservation efforts. Under this provision,
" water conservation" is broadly defined to mean the use of less water for the same purpose
of use allowed under the appropriative water right. A permittee or licensee who seeks the
benefit of section 1011 must file periodic reports with the State Water Resources Control
Board describing the extent and amount of the reduction in water use due to water
conservation efforts.
This 20x2020 Plan addresses only potable water use. “ Water use efficiency” in
some state programs includes both water conservation and water recycling, but this meaning
is not used for this plan. Urban potable water use includes all residential, commercial,
institutional and industrial users as well as non- revenue water. Non- potable recycled water
was excluded while estimating baseline per capita urban water use to give credit to agencies
that have promoted recycled water in the past. Additional use of recycled water will be a
significant method by which regions can continue to offset baseline potable urban water
demand to meet 2020 goals.
This 20x2020 Plan does not consider processes that convert a non- potable source
into a potable source as methods to reduce per capita use, since they are new supply
options. Desalination and use of recycled water to recharge aquifers or augment surface
supplies are included among these new supply options. Municipal stormwater capture is also
a new supply option and is therefore not considered in this plan.
This 20x2020 Plan does not address water supplied by customers for their own
use or consider processes that create new supply on the customer side of the meter. The
plan focuses on potable water supplied in municipal distribution systems and does not
include quantities of self- supplied water in per capita use calculations. Some water users
have access to groundwater or surface water to provide a part or all of their water needs. In
addition, alternative sources of water, such as graywater ( untreated household waste water
3
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
from clothes washers, tubs and showers), rainwater recapture, and on- site diverted
stormwater are examples of non- potable sources that may reduce per capita use, but were not
included in the analysis at this time.
This 20x2020 Plan does not address water losses in transmission of water between
sources of supply and potable water treatment and distribution systems. An attempt has
been made to account for water losses within potable water distribution systems, captured
within the categories of “ non- revenue water” or “ unreported water.” In the DWR database
that was the primary source of data for this project, “ un- reported water” includes “ large
landscapes” ( parks, golf courses, schools) ) for which water deliveries may not be measured;
“ other” ( system flushing, fire hydrant testing, etc.); and “ non- revenue water” ( previously
referred to as “ un- accounted for water” ( i. e., system water losses from leaks, slow meter
registers, theft, etc.) Further discussion of data development can be found in Chapter 2.
This 20x2020 Plan recommends actions that will reduce per capita use, not total
urban use, by 20 percent. While this 20x2020 Plan is being implemented, California’s
population will continue to grow. Depending on the rate of population growth, total urban
water use may never go down and could eventually rise, even if all the recommendations in
this 20x2020 Plan are successfully implemented. Clearly, this 20x2020 Plan alone will not
lead to long- term sustainable water use. Other efforts to balance supply and demand will be
needed, including continued reductions in per capita demand. Reduced per capita use is just
one part of a comprehensive program to improve water supply reliability and restore
ecosystem health.
This 20x2020 Plan is based on analyses conducted on a regional and statewide
basis. The analyses were designed to account for regional differences, including varying
levels of past conservation in different regions and varying climate that affects outdoor water
use. Two regional approaches to planning were considered – use of hydrologic regions ( HR)
and reference evapotranspiration ( ETo) zones. Hydrologic Regions refer to the 10 regions
delineated by DWR based on topographic and hydrologic characteristics ( Figure 1). ETo
zones refer to the 18 zones delineated by DWR and the University of California based on
climate characteristics ( Figure 2) related to the consumption of water by well- watered cool
season turfgrass species. Analysis at the water supplier level was not carried out because the
supplier- level data were inconsistent and incomplete, and such a fine level of detail was not
considered necessary to develop the 20x2020 Plan.
Data analysis and development of conservation targets for planning purposes was
conducted by hydrologic region rather than ETo zone for two reasons. First, a large portion
of data available for undertaking the analyses presented here were either already collated by
hydrologic region, or were easier to collate by hydrologic region than by ETo zones. Second,
major funding for integrated regional water management – including water conservation – is
structured according to hydrologic region. Regional entities, such as Integrated Regional
Water Management consortia, have an important role to play in the success of this 20x2020
Plan and implementing its recommendations. Nevertheless, climate is a powerful factor
affecting water use. Ideal regional targets would reflect the climate variability represented by
the ETo zones, would result in irrigation water use substantially lower than ETo amounts,
and would be flexible enough to accommodate implementation at the geographic scale of
hydrologic region or water supplier service area.
This 20x020 Plan does not set targets for individual water suppliers. Within each
hydrologic region, there are wide variations among water suppliers. Many factors can affect
per capita use, including varying climate within a region, varying land use patterns and
population density, different kinds of commercial and industrial use, and past conservation
4
Chapter 1. Introduction
effort. This plan does not provide the guidance needed to move from regional planning
targets to supplier- specific targets. Water supplier targets could be developed using a per
capita approach like the regional targets, or could account for local differences by
establishing reasonable use levels through the calculation of water budgets.
Figure 1. California Hydrologic Regions
5
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
6
Figure 2. California Reference Evapotranspiration Zones
Overlapping Hydrologic Regions
20x2020 Planning Process
20x2020 Planning Process
The process of developing the 20x2020 Plan is illustrated in Figure 3 ( completed steps
are highlighted). There are five steps:
1. Data Analysis
2. Baseline Definition
3. Preliminary Targets Development
4. Conservation Potential Identification
5. Implementation Planning
In this 20x2020 Plan, findings of previous works are summarized, and many tools and
activities that the state and local water suppliers could implement to achieve a statewide
20 percent reduction in per capita use are described.
Summary of the Statewide Planning Effort
A significant amount of data collection and technical analysis was conducted to
prepare this 20x2020 Plan. Results of this work are contained in the following technical
memoranda ( TMs). All of these documents are available at the following website hosted by
SWRCB: http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ water_ issues/ hot_ topics/ 20x2020/ index. shtml
These TMs were draft working documents and were not updated to include changes
made in response to public comment or further analysis by the agency team. They provided a
starting point, with comments and discussion from stakeholders and the team modifying the
approach and conclusions of the initial TM findings to produce this document. As such, they
provide a historic reference to this 20x2020 Plan.
Figure 3. 20x2020 Plan Development Process
7
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
TM 1. Establishing Baselines
This TM evaluated the available potable water use data and established baseline per
capita water use values for each of the ten hydrologic regions, expressed as gallons per
capita daily or GPCD. These baselines were used to determine the target GPCD values.
TM 2. Determining Conservation Targets
Urban water use varies widely among regions, due to the effect of past conservation
efforts, community attributes, and climate differences. A uniform statewide 20 percent
reduction in water use would fail to properly account for these regional differences. To
provide one idea of how regional targets might vary, this TM used the baseline GPCD values
determined in TM 1 to set the target GPCD values for each of the ten hydrologic regions.
These targets were derived before savings estimates from “ current” and “ future”
conservation programs and actions were fully developed. Considerable public input on
target- setting received at public workshops prompted further revision of both the
methodology and the targets. The revised targets and methodology discussed in this
document supersede what was earlier presented in TM 2. See Chapter 2 of this 20x2020 Plan
for additional discussion.
TM 3 ( Performance Metrics) and TM 6 ( Implementation Plan) were not developed
as Technical Memoranda as originally anticipated. They are not posted as Technical
Memoranda on the website, but are addressed only in this 20x2020 Plan, as described in
Chapter 4. Because of timing and funding constraints, these topics were not presented for
discussion at early workshops but were included for discussion during the final public
workshop.
TM 4. Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions
TM 4 evaluated GPCD savings that each region could likely achieve using existing
conservation tools and programs. Measures quantified include the impact of existing
plumbing codes; the potential impact of existing regulatory initiatives requiring complete
urban metering by 2025; the implementation of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) at
existing rates ( except for high efficiency clothes washers which were considered as a new
action); and improving these implementation rates in the future because of recent legislation
( AB 1420, Laird 2007), which ties receipt of water- related state grant funding to BMP
implementation.
After adopting the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation ( MOU) in 1991, many urban water
suppliers initiated water conservation programs identified as BMPs in the MOU. These
BMPs are listed in Table 1.
A key source for the savings estimates was the CALFED Bay- Delta Program’s Water
Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation ( referred to hereinafter as Comprehensive
Evaluation). 1 This evaluation was conducted by the CALFED Bay- Delta Program to assess
water use efficiency progress made during the implementation of the CALFED Program
from 2000 to 2004, and to assess the potential for additional efficiency improvements under
several different funding and implementation scenarios. To develop the 20x2020 Plan, these
estimates were updated to account for new codes, such as AB 715 ( Laird, 2007), that
requires only high- efficiency toilets and urinals ( HETs and HEUs) to be sold or installed
1 CALFED Bay- Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, “ Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation,”
August 2006.
8
20x2020 Planning Process
after January 1, 2014. The Comprehensive Evaluation’s savings estimates were also adjusted
to 2005, the last year of the 11- year water production data history from which baseline
GPCD estimates were derived. The Comprehensive Evaluation examines different levels of
implementation of the Best Management Practices for Urban Water Conservation ( BMPs) as
described in the Memorandum of Understanding administered by CUWCC. Although the
MOU was revised in December 2008, the list of BMPs presented here is as they existed prior
to this revision since that is how the Comprehensive Evaluation’s analyses were conducted.
Table 1. List of Best Management Practices ( BMPs)
BMP Description
BMP 1 Water survey programs for residential customers
BMP 2 Residential plumbing retrofit
BMP 3 System water audits, leak detection and repair
BMP 4 Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing
unmetered connections
BMP 5 Large landscape conservation programs and incentives
BMP 6 High efficiency clothes- washing machine financial incentive program
BMP 7 Public information programs
BMP 8 School education programs
BMP 9 Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, institutional ( CII) accounts
BMP 10 Wholesale agency assistance programs
BMP 11 Retail conservation pricing
BMP 12 Conservation coordinator
BMP 13 Water waste prohibition
BMP 14 Residential ultra- low- flush toilet ( ULFT) replacement programs
TM 5. Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions
TM 5 evaluated GPCD savings that each region could likely achieve through new
conservation tools and programs. Measures quantified include savings from the retrofit of
inefficient clothes washers with more efficient washers, retrofit of large- landscape
residences with weather- based irrigation controllers, and several new technologies evaluated
by CUWCC as part of its Potential Best Management Practice review. TM 5 also estimated
additional savings likely if coverage goals for a select set of BMPs are expanded relative to
what is stated in the MOU, if aggressive programs are pursued to reduce unaccounted for
water beyond what is required by the MOU, if residential irrigation is restricted to only one
or two days per week, and if recycling projects come on line as projected.
Finally, TM 5 presented some placeholder estimates of likely additional savings at an
assumed level of investment of grant funds for water conservation. These savings estimates
are also drawn from the Comprehensive Evaluation. The scenario assumes that $ 30 million
per year would be available between 2005 and 2014, and $ 7.5 million per year thereafter
until 2020. It is important to note that the Comprehensive Evaluation followed an elaborate
cost- effectiveness criterion to allocate funds across different hydrologic regions, taking into
9
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
10
account an estimate of the marginal cost of water to a region. Under Proposition 84, which
allocated $ 1 billion in grant funds for water management, each region is assured a
proportionate share of the total grant funding. This does not assure that regional funds will
be used to implement efficiency improvements, and conservation efforts have been more
modest in areas such as the Central Valley where the cost of water has been comparatively
lower. Therefore, estimates of grant- funded savings should be treated as highly uncertain.
Additional incentives or disincentives may be needed to improve water use efficiency in
regions where the price of water is furthest from fully reflecting the true costs of the water
supply and does not include the costs of extensive conservation programs.
Public Outreach
Information on development of the 20x2020 Plan is posted on the SWRCB website at:
http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ water_ issues/ hot_ topics/ 20x2020/ index. shtml
This website also includes links to all the TMs.
The 20x2020 Plan effort hosted three public workshops and a toll- free conference call
to receive input on the conservation planning effort, and conducted a scoping session in
conjunction with a meeting of the Water Plan All Regions forum.
􀁹 A Scoping Session was conducted in San Jose on June 2, 2008 in conjunction with an
“ All Regions Forum,” a meeting supporting the update of the California Water Plan.
This session focused on gathering input about approach and content of the prospective
20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 1 was held in Sacramento on September 15, 2008 and included over
100 participants. This first workshop focused on establishing baseline GPCD and targets
for the year 2020. The discussion provided an overview of the 20 percent by 2020
process and allowed stakeholders to share ideas and questions directly with the Agency
Team. The workshop allowed the Agency Team to get an initial read on the public’s
concerns and sentiments which were incorporated into the draft 20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 2 was held in Sacramento on November 20, 2008 and included over
40 stakeholders. The second workshop focused on potential conservation savings from
current and new actions. Public comments included an extensive dialogue regarding the
treatment of commercial, industrial and institutional target setting. Public comments
were addressed and folded into the draft 20x2020 Plan.
􀁹 Stakeholders present at the second workshop requested a conference call be held to
provide additional clarification on the method used to establish conservation targets.
This conference call was hosted on December 8, 2008 and included over 40 participants.
􀁹 Public Workshop # 3 was held in Sacramento on May 29, 2009 and focused on the public
review draft of the 20x2020 Plan. Also, written comments on the draft plan were
received through the program website and posted on the website for public review.
Appendix C of this final plan includes a summary of the major categories of comments
received, and a summary of the agency team responses.
􀁹 Throughout the 20x2020 Plan process a public comment e- mail address was active as a
mechanism for providing input and a means for posing questions regarding the process.
Before each workshop roughly one dozen comments were submitted via email and were
addressed by the Agency Team.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Water use depends on various factors such as population, climate, land use patterns,
( lot sizes, square footage of irrigated landscape), the age and condition of the water
distribution infrastructure ( water losses), and industrial and socioeconomic characteristics
( the cost of water and income level of residents) of a region. There are significant variations
in per capita use across the state reflecting these factors. The analyses in this 20x2020 Plan
are presented by hydrologic region in part to recognize and account for some of this
variation.
In order to achieve a savings target, it is essential to first define a baseline. Data from a
number of different sources were assessed, as described in following section. However, the
data available for this analysis were not complete and accuracy levels vary significantly
among water suppliers. Furthermore, through the existing water use data collection systems,
there is a considerable lag time between when data are collected and when they are reported
to the various entities. With this in mind, the analyses provided in this 20x2020 Plan should
be treated as initial estimates, based on the best available information. An important step in
implementing this 20x2020 Plan will be to standardize and improve the data collection
process. This recommendation is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.
The baseline and target water use levels described in this plan are for hydrologic
regions. This plan does not describe methods to calculate targets for individual water
suppliers, and the target for a hydrologic region may not be the appropriate target for a
particular supplier within that region, because the regional target may be too low or too high.
These targets were developed for planning at the statewide and regional level.
Establishing a Baseline
The baseline values for each region represent the starting point of the 20x2020 Plan,
and help to determine the progress achieved toward the Governor’s goal. Establishing the
baseline is a dynamic process. The methodology used to develop the baseline in the planning
effort of this 20x2020 Plan was based on the data and resources available at this time and is
a good first step towards accomplishing the 20x2020 Plan’s goals. There is ample room,
however, for improvement and refinement of the baseline as new information becomes
available. Accordingly, this plan recommends improved data collection and management.
Over the years, many agencies and organizations – including DWR, DPH, CPUC and
CUWCC – have collected urban water use data depending upon their goals and needs. Each
dataset has strengths and limitations, as summarized in Table 2.
11
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Table 2. Dataset Strengths and Limitations
Data Source Strength Limitation
DWR – Public Water
Systems Survey
( PWSS)
• Detailed water production, water delivery,
population, and connections data.
• Categorized by market sectors ( e. g., residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.).
• Compiled into a central database.
• Conducted annually.
• Collected voluntarily, which impacts data
completeness and accuracy.
• Recent data ( 2005- present) have not yet been
compiled and validated, and are not available for
use for this Plan.
DWR – Land and Water
Use Program ( LWUP)
• An extension from PWSS database, with data
validated and modified at a sub- county level and
validated using professional judgment.
• Every area has a water use value.
• Only three ( 3) years of data are available ( 1998,
2000, and 2001).
California Urban Water
Conservation Council
( CUWCC)
• Detailed water use data by demand
sector/ customer type
• Includes estimates of water saved through
conservation Best Management Practices
• Only entered by Signatories of Memorandum of
Understanding ( approximately 225 of largest
urban water suppliers in 2008)
• Values expressed in 2006 dollars.
CPUC • Recent urban water use data readily available.
• Mandatory so data set should be complete.
• Limited data points
• Only residential data available.
• Data for connections and water use only.
• Data was reported on annual basis, which limits
the analysis for residential indoor/ outdoor water
use.
DPH • More complete database since the Safe Drinking
Water Act requires water suppliers to report
water use data annually.
• Not available electronically.
• Has not been compiled into a central database.
Stored as hard copies in each DPH office across
the state.
Urban Water
Management Plans
( UWMPs) prepared by
Water Suppliers
• Could provide more detail on water use because
plans are prepared by individual water suppliers.
• Water suppliers serving more than 3,000
connections or more than 3,000 AFY are
required by law to develop and submit UWMPs.
• Mandatory but compliance is not 100 percent.
• Developed only once every five years.
• Not compiled into a central database and
therefore not available electronically.
• No data from small water suppliers that serve
fewer than 3,000 connections or 3,000 AFY.
Supply and Demand Data
Because water production data for any given year includes missing and inconsistent
elements, several years of production and delivery data ( 1995 through 2005) were pooled to
derive more stable average estimates of baseline consumption. Based on these data, no
discernable trend was observed in the overall statewide and regional per capita water use
over this period. Therefore, the most recent year for this period, 2005, has been selected as
the baseline year.
Review of the strengths and limitations associated with the available databases
revealed that data provided by DWR ( both the PWSS and LWUP databases) contain the
most relevant information that could be used for this 20x2020 Plan. There are a number of
uncertainties and possible inaccuracies in these data, but they were the best available at this
time.
12
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Because data submittal to DWR is voluntary, the completeness and accuracy of these
data vary substantially between water suppliers. Some suppliers did not provide data for
certain market sectors and/ or certain years. Suppliers also used different methods in
measuring water production and delivery. It is also evident that water suppliers had different
understandings of specific data fields.
Most suppliers did not provide data on recycled water. If recycled water data were
provided, they were removed from the demand data used to calculate per capita use. This
plan encourages greater use of recycled water by crediting the substitution of recycled water
for potable water as a reduction in potable per capita water use.
Water production of private water suppliers ( e. g., residents with private water wells) is
not captured in the PWSS database and was therefore also excluded from this analysis.
Data Development
Table 3 and Figure 4 below show the variations in average GPCD across the state’s
10 hydrologic regions from the data analyzed in the PWSS database. This includes the base
sectors of total residential, commercial, industrial and other/ non- revenue where data were
available.
Review of the compiled data by hydrologic region showed significant variations across
the state. As expected, the GPCD values were higher in the more arid areas such as the
Colorado Basin ( Region 10). The coastal regions ( 1 through 4) have the lowest GPCD,
partly because they have a cooler climate, limited water supplies, and higher cost of water,
and because these areas have implemented more water conservation programs than many of
the inland areas.
Table 3. Regional Urban Water Use Pattern in 2005
Hydrologic Region
Sector Water Use
( GPCD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10
Residential ( Single- and Multi-
Family)
115 103 109 126 174 159 180 176 255
Commercial and Institutional 18 19 17 23 25 27 23 19 38
Industrial 8 17 8 9 21 32 43 11 3
Un- Reported Water 24 18 20 22 33 30 39 31 50
Total Baseline 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
* Region 8 does not have enough usable data in the PWSS database to compute for baseline values. The
LWUP database was used instead. Note that the LWUP database only contains data for 1998, 2000, 2001.
The baseline values for this region may not be as reliable as values computed for the other regions.
13
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Figure 4. Regional Urban Water Use Patterns
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hydrologic Region
GPCD
Total Residential Commercial Industrial Other, Non- Revenue
Table 4. Per Capita Urban Water Use in California, 1995- 2005
Hydrologic Region
Weighted Average
1995- 2005, GPCD
Range,
GPCD
Region 1: North Coast 165 141- 170
Region 2: San Francisco Bay 157 149- 173
Region 3: Central Coast 154 141- 177
Region 4: South Coast 180 171- 198
Region 5: Sacramento River 253 237- 272
Region 6: San Joaquin River 248 236- 250
Region 7: Tulare Lake 285 242- 341
Region 8: North Lahontan 243 242- 385
Region 9: South Lahontan 237 221- 286
Region 10: Colorado River 346 272- 387
As demonstrated in Table 4, even within hydrologic regions there is significant
variation in use, due to climatic, demographic, or economic factors as well as differing levels
of conservation implementation. This variation demonstrates the need for flexibility in the
design of local conservation programs: no two service areas are identical. As demonstrated
in Figure 5 analysis of the baseline data indicated that outdoor water use is a significant part
of the demand profile for single family households, and reflects a large part of the
differences among regional data. Comparison of the lowest monthly consumption data
( which usually represents mostly indoor use) with the rest of the year showed large potential
for water savings due to landscape modifications or irrigation restrictions. In all Regions
outdoor water consumption exceeds 40 percent of urban consumption. In Regions 5 through
10, it represents more than 50 percent of total demand, and almost 70 percent of demand in
Regions 9 and 10. ( There was insufficient data to represent HR 8 in Figure 5).
14
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Figure 5. Single Family Residential Indoor/ Outdoor Baseline Distribution
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HYDROLOGIC REGION
GPCD
OUTDOOR
INDOOR
There was insufficient data to represent Hydrologic Region 8.
Potential Conservation Savings from Current Actions
( Basic Measures)
Retail water suppliers in California have reported per capita water use remaining
steady or dropping since the early 1990s in many parts of California, for several reasons.
First, after adopting the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s MOU in 1991,
many urban water suppliers have undertaken water conservation programs identified as Best
Management Practices ( BMPs) in the MOU.
The state has also undertaken several regulatory initiatives to improve water use
efficiency, such as mandating that unmetered connections be metered by 2025; that new
construction with significant landscaped areas be subject to plan review to ensure that
efficient irrigation systems and low water- using plants are being used ( Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance); and that there is better coordination between land use and
water use planning ( SB 221 and SB 610, 2001). Not all of these BMPs, regulatory initiatives,
new technologies, or education and outreach activities have easily quantifiable effects, but
they are generally acknowledged to affect water use.
However, overall statewide and regional per capita water use trends remained flat in
California between 1995 and 2005, as indicated in the available datasets employed by this
20x2020 Plan. This suggests that other factors have been at play counteracting the effect of
BMPs, codes, and the above- mentioned regulatory initiatives or perhaps that progress in
reducing GPCDs that have been made in some communities have been offset by increasing
GPCDs in other communities.
The effect of the following codes, active programs, and regulatory activities have been
considered in quantifying conservation savings from current actions.
1. Regulatory activities
a. The conversion of unmetered connections served by the Federal Central
Valley Project ( CVP) to metered connections by 2013, and non- CVP
unmetered connections converted by January 1, 2025, as required by state
law.
15
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
2. Codes related to plumbing and appliance efficiency
a. The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act requiring the sale of efficient
showerheads and California Code regarding high efficiency toilets, AB 715
( Health and Safety Code section 17921.4), that requires only high- efficiency
toilets and urinals ( HETs and HEUs) to be sold or installed after January 1,
2014.
3. Best Management Practices
a. The active conservation programs aimed at retrofit of inefficient fixtures
( BMPs 1, 2, 9 and 14), those aimed at improving outdoor water use efficiency
in residential ( BMP 1) and large landscape settings ( BMP 5), those aimed at
improving water use efficiency in Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
( CII) settings ( BMP 9), and those aimed at reducing system leaks ( BMP 3).
The impact of high- efficiency clothes washer retrofits ( BMP 6) is included
among future actions because this BMP was not being aggressively
implemented during the baseline period, and uncertainty remains about when
a waiver of federal pre- emption might be obtained for the state’s efficient
clothes washer standard. The remaining BMPs have non- quantifiable benefits.
4. New technologies already having an impact
a. Two new conservation measures that are already being implemented under the
auspices of CII programs: ( 1) pre- rinse spray valves; ( 2) steam sterilizers.
Table 5 shows potential savings from code and regulation- driven retrofits, and from
conversion of unmetered accounts to metered accounts. Codes bring about increased
efficiency in two ways. They ensure that fixtures and appliances in new construction are
more efficient. Also, they ensure that when old fixtures and appliances in existing
construction turn over, they are replaced by the more efficient kind.
Table 6 shows potential savings that result from BMP implementation ( except for
BMP 6) up to a point that is regionally cost effective. A measure is regionally cost- effective
if the cost per unit of savings ($/ AF) is less than or equal to the cost of the most expensive
supply measure currently in use regionally. The impact of regionally cost- effective retrofits
of pre- rinse spray valves, commercial dishwashers, steam sterilizers, CII process water, and
efficient residential dishwashers are also included in these estimates. The regionally cost-effective
estimates of savings potential come from the Comprehensive Evaluation, which
provides a complete description of the underlying data, methodology, and models used to
develop these estimates.
Four important caveats apply to these estimates. First, savings estimated to result from
the cost- effective implementation of BMPs ( Table 6) assume both signatories and non-signatories
of the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding implement all BMPs and other
measures deemed regionally cost- effective ( the row entitled “ total savings GPCD @
100 percent compliance). This level of implementation exceeds what water suppliers have
achieved historically through the MOU process. On the other hand, BMP implementation
data filed by MOU signatories is also of uneven quality and does not capture conservation by
non- signatories. Relying solely on these implementation reports will likely understate
achieved conservation. Keeping in mind these data problems, and that only approximately
60 percent of California’s population was being served by retail water supplier MOU
signatories as of 2006, perhaps only half of the 100 percent compliance savings is likely to
be realized if current trends continue. On the other hand, passage of AB 1420 in 2007 ( Water
Code, section 10631.5) is widely expected to spur water suppliers to increase their efforts to
16
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
implement BMPs. It is assumed that enforcement of AB 1420 will result in 80 percent
compliance with cost- effective conservation measures. Table 5 shows that efficiency codes
can be expected to lower statewide water use by 4 percent and regionally cost- effective
programs at 80 percent compliance achieve an additional 6 percent ( Table 6) for a total
statewide reduction of 10 percent.
Second, estimation of baseline consumption itself involves several uncertainties, which
if properly accounted for, could further lower the above reported percent savings estimates.
Because water production data for any given year includes missing and inconsistent
elements, several years of production data ( 1995 through 2005) were pooled to derive more
stable average estimates of baseline consumption. Production data from 2005 ( the most
recent year for which statewide water production data are available) was used as the base
year for estimating remaining savings potential through 2015 and 2020.
Third, code- driven savings associated with toilets and showerheads are computed
using unverified saturation estimates. Small errors in baseline saturation estimates can have
significant impacts.
Finally, the regional marginal water supply cost estimates upon which the cost-effectiveness
analyses are based are somewhat dated and may not capture changes in the
State’s water supply situation, particularly as it pertains to the Delta, that have driven up
water supply costs in recent years. Economic incentives to invest locally in water use
efficiency measures may now be greater than assumed for these analyses.
The savings estimates in this chapter reflect two different approaches to cost-effectiveness.
First, certain BMPs are assumed to be implemented to the level of local cost-effectiveness,
or 80 percent of the level of local cost- effectiveness.
Second, many conservation measures will be implemented without any local
calculation of cost- effectiveness. This implementation is prompted by state or federal law,
institutional agreement, and local practice, and there are many examples. Federal and state
fixture efficiency standards ensure any replacement toilets, showerhead, or faucets will be
highly efficient. California law requires local governments to enact landscape water
conservation ordinances that are at least as effective as the state’s model ordinance.
Hundreds of water suppliers have agreed to implement “ non- quantifiable BMPs” such as
information and education programs. Finally, local governments routinely prohibit wasteful
practices such as gutter flooding, regardless of a customer’s cost to prevent such runoff. As
described in Chapter 3, grant funding is a means of reducing costs of measures that are cost-effective
from a statewide perspective such that the measures become locally cost- effective.
Grant funding is not assumed for the estimates in Table 6.
The analyses of current actions yield several important conclusions. Efficiency codes
still have considerable potential to further reduce water consumption in California on a per
capita basis, even in hydrologic regions with already less than average use. Also,
implementation of BMPs to a level that is regionally cost effective can almost double the
impact of efficiency codes in certain hydrologic regions, such as San Francisco Bay and
South Coast that account for a large share of the state’s population, thus also water use.
On the other hand, simply following a BMP strategy, which relies on voluntary
implementation of locally cost- effective conservation measures, would fail to ensure
implementation of some very reasonable basic conservation measures in many other
hydrologic regions. For example, the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, North and South
Lahontan, and Tulare Lake regions are also home to a significant share of California’s
population, but urban water supply costs remain low relative to other parts of the state.
Different mechanisms will need to be devised to incentivize water suppliers in these regions
17
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
18
to aggressively pursue conservation. The AB 1420 requirement for water suppliers to
implement conservation measures in order to receive state grant or loan funds already
attempts to do this; it will help, but it will not provide sufficient spur for every region to
reach its 2020 target.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Table 5. 2020 Efficiency Code Water Savings – GPCD
Hydrologic Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River SJ
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Residential - Indoor 5 5 5 4 8 7 6 5 5 5 5
Residential - Outdoor 0 0 0 0 10 9 5 0 0 1 2
CII 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Total savings GPCD 7 7 7 6 19 17 12 7 6 6 8
Baseline GPCD 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 192
Percent of Baseline GPCD 4% 5% 4% 3% 7% 7% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4%
2020 Population ( Million) 0.8 7.0 1.7 22.5 3.6 2.8 3.0 0.1 1.4 1.2 44.1
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water
19
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
20
Table 6. 2020 Water Savings from Cost- Effective Measures – GPCD
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River
San
Joaquin
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Residential - Indoor 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Large landscape ( BMP 5) 1 4 2 4 0 3 1 4 7 40 4
CII 2 7 5 7 0 1 1 3 2 4 5
Non- Revenue Water 0 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total savings GPCD @ 100%
compliance 4 15 9 17 0 3 2 7 9 44 13
Total savings GPCD @ 80%
compliance 3 12 8 13 0 3 2 6 8 36 11
Baseline GPCD 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 192
Percent of Baseline GPCD @
80% compliance 2% 8% 5% 7% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 10% 6%
2020 Population ( Million) 0.8 7.0 1.7 22.5 3.6 2.8 3.0 0.1 1.4 1.2 44.1
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Potential Conservation Savings from New Actions
( Additional Measures)
Current actions alone will not achieve the state’s 20 percent reduction goal by 2020.
However, the goal can be achieved through a combination of current and new actions. For
this 20x2020 Plan, many potential measures were considered. The following categories of
measures are recommended for the initial focus of state action and support based on
potential water savings and feasibility of implementation:
􀁹 Efficient clothes washers
􀁹 Residential weather- based irrigation controllers
􀁹 Grant funding
􀁹 Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs
􀁹 Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3
􀁹 Landscape practices
􀁹 New technologies
􀁹 Recycled water
Table 7 combines all the savings estimates developed for the 20x2020 Plan. Efficient
clothes washers, residential weather- based irrigation controllers and grant funding are
considered as “ Basic Measures” in Table 7, along with efficiency code changes and cost
effective water conservation measures; many water suppliers are already implementing such
programs and are expected to continue to support those activities. Accelerated coverage
goals, reduction in non- revenue water, landscape practices, new technologies and recycled
water are considered “ Additional Measures” in Table 7.
Efficient clothes washers
The California Energy Commission ( CEC) adopted water efficiency standards for
clothes washers in 2004. It is a tiered standard based on the “ water factor” of the clothes
washer, which is the number of gallons per cubic foot of drum capacity. Conventional
washers have a water factor of about 13.3. In 2007, the maximum water factor to be allowed
was 8.5. By 2010 the standard would have been further reduced to 6.0. Federal approval is
still required, as the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 allows only the federal government
to regulate residential clothes washers, pre- empting state standards, unless a state waiver is
approved. California has requested such a waiver and continues to press for federal approval.
Several MOU signatories since 2005 have begun to promote efficient clothes washers
through rebate programs ( BMP 6), and market forces are also transforming the appliances
retailers are offering to consumers. The impact of all these factors remains uncertain and
difficult to model. Savings were estimated in the following way: First, savings were
estimated assuming that the above mentioned efficiency code had gone into effect as
intended; but then this estimate was halved under the assumption that active rebate programs
and natural turnover will produce half the savings efficiency codes would have realized by
2020. This “ half” estimate roughly works out to two to three GPCD.
Residential weather- based irrigation controllers
Studies have shown that landscape irrigation is frequently inefficient and, in some
cases, a high percentage of residential landscape irrigation is wasted as a result of over-watering,
poor design and poor maintenance. The analysis assumed that the top quarter of
single- family homes in terms of landscape area can be cost- effectively fitted with weather-
21
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
based irrigation controllers that take much of the “ guess- work” out of scheduling and
determining the needed quantities of water. Many suppliers are experimenting with this
measure even though it is not specifically included in any BMP. Savings from this measure
are conservatively estimated to be 3 to 4 GPCD by 2020.
Grant funding
Estimates of likely additional savings from grant funding to promote water
conservation were included in the analysis, with input from the Comprehensive Evaluation.
The scenario assumes that $ 30 million per year would be available between 2005 and 2014,
and $ 7.5 million per year thereafter until 2020. Grant funding savings estimates are based on
the assumption in the Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation that grant funding
will induce the implementation of measures that are cost- effective from a statewide
perspective but not from a local perspective, and will reimburse the cost increment between
local and statewide cost- effectiveness.
Accelerated coverage goals for some BMPs
Instead of implementing BMPs within the existing voluntary framework, all water
suppliers or others could be required to implement certain basic conservation measures,
regardless of cost- effectiveness, to meet a maximum coverage goal. For example, all
residential or commercial buildings could be required to have efficient toilets, urinals, and
showerheads by 2020. This would force fixture replacement even in regions where the
avoided cost of water is still perceived to be low. This would generate additional savings
since active programs and natural turnover are not expected to raise the saturation of these
devices to 100 percent by 2020.
For the purpose of quantification, the following measures and corresponding 2020
coverage goals have been included in the list of affected BMPs:
􀁹 Saturation of inefficient toilets and urinals in residential and commercial buildings to
drop below 5 percent in each hydrologic region.
􀁹 Saturation of inefficient showerheads to drop below 5 percent in each region ( this is
expected to happen due to natural turnover anyway, so including this requirement does
not contribute incremental savings, but was included to ensure that such a basic item
automatically becomes subject to a field verification program).
􀁹 Efficient clothes washer saturation to reach a level it would have in the presence of the
State’s efficiency code ( roughly 85 percent).
􀁹 All unmetered urban connections to be converted to metered connections before 2020.
􀁹 Non- revenue water is to be brought down to no more than 10 percent of total production
where at present it is greater than 10 percent— BMP 3 would be mandatory.
Aggressive reduction in non- revenue water beyond BMP 3
There is significant opportunity for water use reductions related to leak detection and
repair in water delivery systems. The new water audit structure promoted by the American
Water Works Association and being discussed by the CUWCC includes a more rigorous
standard than BMP 3. Most utilities currently use a percentage of production to evaluate
losses, but expression of losses as gallons per connection provides a measure that is easier to
relate to usage.
BMP 3, which aims to reduce non- revenue water to 10 percent of production, has
already been analyzed in previous sections. However, these goals can be exceeded, as other
22
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
countries have demonstrated. For example, in the United Kingdom the target for
unaccounted water is 30 gallons per connection per day. Many communities in the United
Kingdom and Europe are at or below 40 gallons per connection per day. If a similar goal
were to be pursued in California, water savings from a low of 2 GPCD for Central Coast to a
high of 21 GPCD for the Colorado River regions could be achieved.
Better information on reduction in non- revenue water will become available as more
water suppliers use the new AWWA water audit structure.
Landscape practices
There are many actions that may be taken to improve landscape water use efficiency.
Professional landscape and irrigation design, proper installation, careful maintenance and
management of the site, and the selection of high quality irrigation equipment are some of
the factors that can influence the efficient use of water in the landscape. Dedicated landscape
meters, establishment of landscape water budgets and associated budget- based rate
structures, the performance of irrigation audits, public information programs, technical
training for landscape professionals, the use of alternative sources of water in the landscape,
and a multitude of rebate programs to support conversion from lawns to water- smart plants
and irrigation equipment are examples of actions that can be taken along with or in place of
irrigation restrictions.
It is essential for state government to lead a comprehensive suite of programs to
improve landscape water use efficiency in California in order to achieve the Governor’s
water use efficiency goal. Such an effort would yield many other benefits such as improved
water quality, reduced energy use and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, more
stormwater capture, and less production of green waste.
For the purposes of this 20x2020 Plan, landscape water savings are based upon
estimates related to irrigation restrictions. Irrigation restrictions can be a very useful tool for
reducing water use, especially in the high demand summer months and in the warmer
regions of the state. In many areas, water use doubles when customers start to irrigate their
landscapes. Many utilities use irrigation restrictions during a prolonged drought or when
water reservoirs run low. In practice, restricting irrigation to one day per week would
probably require some major changes. In most parts of the state, lawns can do well with
twice weekly irrigation, but not as well with once weekly irrigation.
While irrigation restrictions have been used to estimate savings, local water suppliers
have many program options for reducing landscape irrigation and conserving water.
Irrigation restrictions may result in some landscape maintenance challenges and customer
complaints, making implementation more difficult. In some locations, irrigation restrictions
have been combined with subsidies for turf removal. This results in some customers
reducing irrigation by changing landscape choices from turfgrass to native or other plant
species adapted to the California climate of winter rains and a summer dry season. Such
“ cash for grass” programs have been implemented successfully in California and other
states.
Ideally, a water supplier will be able to use a variety of methods— including customer
education, incentives, and enforcement— to achieve landscape water savings, rather than a
single inflexible tool such as an irrigation restriction. The goal is reasonable use by each
customer, and landscapes that are designed, installed, and maintained to be water- efficient.
Using twice weekly watering as a surrogate for a range of landscape conservation
programs that could be implemented at the local level, savings are estimated to be between
23
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
11 and 40 GPCD depending on the region. If irrigation were restricted to once per week,
then the range would be 20 to 73 GPCD.
New technologies
CUWCC screened several new conservation technologies between 2004 and 2007.
Savings were estimated for the following:
􀁹 On- premise laundries ( e. g., hotels, hospitals, universities, prisons, etc.)
􀁹 Building cooling systems
􀁹 Efficient residential dishwashers for new construction
􀁹 Vehicle wash systems
􀁹 Residential hot water distribution systems for new construction
􀁹 Commercial ice machines
􀁹 Waterless urinals
Finally, there are additional technologies, each with small individual impacts that can
generate some additional savings. For example, there are savings from replacing inefficient
urinals with high- efficiency urinals ( HEUs using 0.5 gallons per flush). But if waterless
urinals are used as replacements instead of HEUs, savings would roughly increase by an
additional 0.2 GPCD by 2020. Savings from other devices, such as pressurized water brooms
and dry vacuum pumps, could contribute roughly 0.1 GPCD. Total impact from all these
myriad conservation measures can thus be expected to roughly equal 2 GPCD, which is what
was used in the final accounting, presented in Table 7.
Recycled water
Data from DWR and SWRCB were used to quantify the amount of recycled water
likely to be available in each region for offsetting urban use by 2020. The recently- adopted
SWRCB water recycling policy is anticipated to increase the use of recycled water
throughout the state. Since only potable water is considered in the GPCD calculations in this
20x2020 Plan, increasing the use of recycled water will result in lower per capita use when it
replaces an otherwise potable demand. Such an approach, if incorporated into statute, would
help encourage greater use of recycled water.
Putting it all together
Table 7 combines all the savings estimates developed for this 20x2020 Plan, including
savings from current actions ( Basic Measures) as well as savings from future actions
( Additional Measures). Basic Measures are those that are already being implemented by
water suppliers and could be adopted by those that have not aggressively pursued
conservation until now. Basic Measures include the minimum activities expected within
each region. Additional Measures are those that can be pursued to meet the regional targets
when the Basic Measures alone do not meet the regional targets. The savings estimates from
the first group, Basic Measures, were used to derive the regional targets described in the next
section.
In the development of Table 7 considerable care was taken to prevent double- counting
of savings. For example, savings estimates from code and from cost- effective
implementation of BMPs reflect separate increments of savings. Grant- funded savings, while
obtained from implementation of existing BMPs, count only the savings that would not
already be obtained through codes and implementation of cost- effective measures. Savings
attributed to irrigation restrictions only reflect the savings from the single- family residential
24
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
25
sector; large- landscape programs are included separately. Savings from conservation rate
structures and the Model Landscape Ordinance are not included in Table 7 to avoid any
possibility of double- counting. The only exception is savings attributable to smart irrigation
controllers, which is included.
An important conclusion from Table 7 is that a 20 percent reduction in per capita use is
achievable. By pursuing more widespread implementation of existing measures, and
implementing well- documented new measures, California can reduce its per capita use rate
20 percent by 2020.
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Table 7. Summary of 2020 Savings from All Evaluated Measures – GPCD
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HR Name ->
North
Coast
SF
Bay
Cent.
Coast
South
Coast
Sac.
River
San
Joaquin
Tulare
Lake
North
Lahontan
South
Lahontan
CO
River*
State-wide
Savings From Basic Measures
Code 7 7 7 6 19 17 12 7 6 6 8
80% of local CE 3 12 8 13 0 3 2 6 8 36 11
Grant funded 11 1 12 1 3 8 13 15 24 8 4
Efficient clothes washers 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Residential ET controllers 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
TOTAL ( basic measures) 28 26 32 24 28 33 32 36 43 56 28
Savings From Additional Measures
Accelerated coverage goals 11 8 10 7 17 13 14 14 17 17 9
Recycling 4 7 1 4 3 1 6 3
Water loss control ( 40
g/ conn./ day) 3 2 2 4 11 11 15 11 10 21 6
Irrigation restrictions ( 2
day/ week) 11 11 11 13 23 22 25 11 29 40 16
Miscellaneous PBMPs 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL ( additional measures) 31 30 26 29 56 48 57 38 58 86 37
* Savings estimates for CII and landscape measures in HR 10 may have low reliability due to faulty estimates of landscape applied water.
26
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Statewide Targets
The development of per capita use targets was the most difficult task in this 20x2020
Plan. This effort yielded insights that may help the Legislature as it works to incorporate the
20 percent reduction goal into statute. These insights are discussed more fully in Chapter 3.
The variations within the data provided, the lack of data from many water suppliers,
and the limited scope of this planning effort meant that an analysis of GPCD on an agency-by-
agency basis was not possible. However, there was enough information on a regional
( hydrologic region) basis to evaluate trends and provide initial target methodologies. The
aim is to use these regional targets as an example of how targets might vary by region
according to base year water use, past conservation practices, and current per capita use. Any
subsequent effort to establish targets for individual suppliers would need to incorporate
additional information on factors such as past conservation, customer base, and climate.
The conservation targets for the interim year ( 2015) are not a linear interpolation
between the baseline and the final goal. An interim conservation target, equivalent to
50 percent of the expected savings, would allow time for water suppliers to incorporate the
20x2020 Plan goals into their conservation program activities. A conservation target of a
statewide 20 percent reduction from the baseline was defined for year 2020, by which time
all suppliers should be able to implement the conservation programs necessary to achieve the
statewide 20 percent reduction goal.
The statewide baseline water use value, expressed in gallons per capita per day
( GPCD), is 192 GPCD. The corresponding statewide targets are:
􀁹 Interim Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 10 percent =
173 GPCD
􀁹 Final Statewide Target = 192 GPCD ( Statewide Baseline) minus 20 percent =
154 GPCD.
Based on a 2005 population of about 37 million and per capita use of 192 GPCD, total
urban use would be about 7.9 MAF per year, and the annual statewide savings would be
about 1.59 MAF. According to the California Water Plan Update 2005, total urban water
use for the most recent normal hydrologic year ( 2000) was 8.9 MAF. A 20 percent reduction
in this level of use would be 1.78 MAF. These amounts are the projected 2020 savings
attributable to the 2005 population.
As the population grows between 2005 and 2020, per capita use associated with new
growth is expected to be lower than baseline per capita use, even without implementation of
this 20x2020 Plan, because new dwellings will have the latest in efficient fixtures,
appliances, and landscapes. Implementation of this plan will further reduce the per capita use
of new residents due to measures such as public information and outreach, and conservation
pricing. This increment of savings has not been separately estimated, but it is likely the
actual 2020 savings would be more than 1.59- 1.78 MAF per year.
Figure 6 below summarizes the regional targets. Detailed step- by- step explanation and
equation of the methodology used to determine these targets are included in Appendix B.
27
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
28
Table 8. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346
Interim Targets ( 2015) 151 144 139 165 215 211 237 208 204 278
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211
Figure 6. Regional Urban Water Use Targets
Table 9 shows each region’s progress in meeting planning targets with the
implementation of basic measures and, if necessary, implementation of additional measures.
The statewide column in this table shows the result in 2020. By this time, population growth
will have occurred in each region, with a larger share of population growth occurring in
regions with higher per capita use. Thus, the no- action baseline would rise from 192 GPCD
currently to 199 GPCD in 2020.
By 2020, through prompt aggressive action and sustained effort, California can reduce
its per capita use by more than 20 percent. Only one region would be unable to meet its
target after implementing the measures described in this plan, the Tulare Lake region. Even
though one region is projected to fall short of its target, that shortage will likely be offset by
savings in other regions.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Baseline and Targets
Table 9. Achievement of Targets by Region, 2020
Hydrologic Region Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Statewide
2020
Result
Baseline ( 1995- 2005) 165 157 154 180 253 248 285 243 237 346 199
Targets ( 2020) 137 131 123 149 176 174 188 173 170 211 154
Desired savings 28 26 31 31 77 74 97 70 67 135 45
Total savings ( basic measures) 28 26 32 24 28 33 32 36 43 56 28
2020 Savings shortfall after implementing basic
measures - - - 7 49 41 65 34 24 79 17
Total savings available ( additional measures) 31 30 26 29 56 48 57 38 58 86 37
2020 Shortfall still remaining after implementing
additional measures - - - - - - 8 - - - -
29
Chapter 3. Recommendations
Chapter 3. Recommendations
California can achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020.
The analyses described in Chapter 2, as summarized in Table 7, show that basic conservation
measures including implementation of BMPs, codes, and ordinances will produce significant
savings, and in some regions of the state, most of the water savings sought by the 20 percent
statewide target. Nevertheless, these actions will be insufficient to achieve the target for
most regions. To achieve the Governor’s goal, some new actions will be needed. Legislation
or additional secure funding will be needed to ensure that these measures are implemented.
A long- term statewide strategic approach with conservation targets mandated by statute and
an array of new measures available to water suppliers and regions is needed to achieve the
goal.
California can achieve this ambitious goal only if state agencies, regions, and local
water suppliers take prompt and aggressive action. Recommended actions to contribute
toward a statewide strategic approach ( as described in more detail in this chapter) fall into
the following categories:
1. Establish a foundation for a statewide Conservation Strategy.
a. Establish targets and goals in statute.
b. Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework.
c. Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation.
d. Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database.
e. Maintain existing programs and institutions.
2. Reduce landscape irrigation demand.
a. Require water- efficient landscapes at state- owned properties.
b. Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and
irrigation programs and the development of new landscape programs.
c. Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP.
3. Reduce waste.
a. Accelerate installation of water meters.
b. Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy.
c. Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies and
accelerate coverage goals.
4. Reinforce efficiency codes and related BMPs.
a. Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washers.
b. Support landscape irrigation equipment standards.
c. Accelerate replacement of inefficient showerheads, toilets and urinals.
d. Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses.
5. Provide financial incentives.
a. Encourage or mandate conservation water pricing.
b. Provide grants, loans, and rebates to wholesale and retail water suppliers and
customers.
c. Establish a public goods charge for water.
d. Fund the installation of water meters.
31
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
6. Implement a statewide conservation public information and outreach campaign.
7. Provide new or exercise existing enforcement mechanisms to facilitate water
conservation.
a. Require implementation of water conservation as a condition to receive state
financial assistance.
b. Take enforcement actions to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water.
c. Provide additional enforcement tools for water suppliers.
8. Investigate potential flexible implementation measures.
a. Investigate requiring conservation offsets for water demand generated by new
development.
b. Investigate establishment of a cap- and- trade regime.
9. Increase the use of recycled water and non- traditional sources of water.
Establish a foundation for a statewide conservation strategy
Establish targets and goals in statute
The 20 percent goal for reducing water consumption by 2020 is achievable. However,
without additional work to establish local targets and a firm requirement to achieve the
savings, track progress, and define consequences for suppliers or regions that fail to meet
targets, California is not likely to achieve the goal set by the Governor.
The Agency Team’s efforts to develop a planning approach to target- setting, the public
feedback received on this draft approach, and the public discussions regarding AB 2175
( Laird, 2008), which would have established conservation targets, all provide valuable
insights into target- setting legislation. The following criteria should guide the structure of
legislation to place the Governor’s goal into statute:
􀁹 All water suppliers should be treated consistently, and targets should be equitable.
􀁹 The approach to target- setting should be kept as simple as possible.
􀁹 The target- setting approach should take into account past conservation efforts by
suppliers or regions.
􀁹 Differences in climate should be taken into account.
􀁹 The law should allow flexibility in implementation to the greatest extent possible.
􀁹 The law should accommodate, encourage and support emerging regional water
management entities and allow regional compliance.
􀁹 Separate approaches are necessary for residential water use— as opposed to commercial,
industrial and institutional water use— to accommodate unique local conditions.
􀁹 The legislation should allow and encourage implementation of the most cost- effective
measures through mechanisms such as regional compliance that would permit an
incremental step toward a cap- and- trade approach.
􀁹 Some regions and water suppliers will need to achieve more conservation than others,
due to varying levels of past conservation implementation.
􀁹 The legislation should establish deadlines for compliance, as well as consequences for
failure to comply.
In November 2009 California placed the 20x2020 goal into statute with the enactment
of SBX7 7 ( Steinberg), part of an historic package of water reforms.
32
Chapter 3. Recommendations
Establish a state agency leadership and coordination framework
Several state agencies have responsibility or authority over different aspects of water
management. Better communication and coordination among these agencies, and designation
of a lead agency will be important aspects of implementing the 20x2020 Plan and assuring
its success. The lead agency should coordinate and organize a framework for agency
implementation efforts; use combined agency data sources to measure progress toward
meeting the Governor’s goal; seek the advice of a stakeholder panel regarding program
refinement and implementation; coordinate assistance programs to help regions and
communities achieve targeted savings; communicate implementation success to the public
and to stakeholders; alert water suppliers and regions that are not meeting targets; and
recommend additional actions that may be needed to meet the goal.
The Agency Team evaluated each agency’s ability to lead a specific task under this
20x2020 Plan, and also identified the expected outcome of such tasks. Some of the tasks are
already being performed by certain agencies. It is not anticipated that the existing authorities
of different involved agencies will be consolidated into one agency to implement this
20x2020 Plan. However, it probably will be necessary to appoint one agency with an overall
lead and coordination role.
In conjunction with this lead agency, each involved state agency will be responsible for
implementing and tracking components of the 20x2020 Plan that fall within the purview of
its authority. For example, the CPUC has regulatory oversight of investor- owned utilities;
the SWRCB enforces water rights and constitutional prohibitions on waste and unreasonable
use; the CEC has regulatory authority over water use efficiency standards for appliance and
equipment; the DPH has authority for enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
regulates potable water treatment and delivery by all public water systems; and DWR has
planning and conservation monitoring authority, as well as influence over the disbursement
of grants and loans. Closer state interagency coordination will be needed to facilitate data
management, program implementation, and statute enforcement.
The lead agency with the cooperation of participating agencies should:
􀁹 Coordinate and organize agency implementation efforts
􀁹 Use combined agency data sources to measure progress toward meeting the Governor’s
goal
􀁹 Communicate implementation success to the public and to stakeholders
􀁹 Encourage water suppliers to expand and strengthen implementation of water
conservation programs and recycled water programs
􀁹 Expand state technical assistance programs to help suppliers and regions implement
voluntary or elective local programs
􀁹 Alert water suppliers and regions that are not meeting targets
􀁹 Finalize a measurement and evaluation plan ( performance metrics) to assess whether
2015 and 2020 regional targets have been met
􀁹 Recommend additional actions that may be needed to meet the goal.
DWR should serve as the lead agency. DWR is currently responsible for updating the
California Water Plan, disbursing grants for integrated regional water management,
promoting water conservation, and reviewing urban water management plans.
In addition, there is a need for closer coordination with federal agencies, the CUWCC,
IRWM Planning Groups and water suppliers, all of whom will play a role in the successful
implementation of the 20x2020 Plan. Where membership organizations such as the CUWCC
33
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
provide technical assistance or other program support, these efforts should receive financial
support. Table 10 shows potential agency roles for the implementation.
Provide a forum for stakeholder advice on refinement and implementation
One valuable recommendation made during public review of the draft of this plan was
to establish a stakeholder advisory group. The Agency Team intends to implement this
recommendation by establishing a group that can meet periodically and offer guidance on
refinement and implementation of this plan.
Table 10. Agency Roles for Key Implementation Activities
Program Task Key Agencies Activities
20x2020 Administration DWR Management, coordination, analysis, reporting
Data Management DWR, SWRCB, DPH,
CPUC, CEC,
CUWCC
Coordinate with other agencies to ascertain
overall data requirements. Design and
maintain an electronic data submission
system
Design regional strategies for
achieving regional targets
DWR, SWRCB,
Regional water
management entities
Assess baseline GPCD by supplier,
conservation programs undertaken to date,
and what tools will take the region to its target
GPCD
Identify new legislation and
regulations required
DWR, SWRCB,
CUWCC
Develop proposed text for each legislation
and regulation
Appropriate grant funding DWR, SWRCB Interact with legislature to generate a reliable
revenue stream for promoting water
conservation
Landscape water conservation DWR, SWRCB, CEC,
CUWCC
Establish a range of new programs to promote
landscape water conservation
Outreach DWR, SWRCB,
CUWCC
Inform water suppliers about the Program’s
requirements. Obtain feedback from
stakeholders
Public education DWR, CUWCC Design and implement a general public
education campaign emphasizing water
conservation
Metering DWR, SWRCB, DPH,
CPUC
Develop and implement programs to expedite
metering
Appliance efficiency standards CEC, DWR Promote higher appliance efficiency
standards.
Other potable water offsets DWR, SWRCB, DPH Promote the use of recycled water, storm-water
capture, and gray- water
Coordinate with AB 32 Scoping
Plan implementation
ARB, DWR, SWRCB,
CEC, CPUC
Ensure that conservation implementation is
mindful of GHG reductions to comply with
AB 32
Improve coordination between
water and land use agencies
DWR, SWRCB, ARB Work with water suppliers and local
governments to coordinate actions;
recommend improvements.
Mandate uniform data collection and establish a statewide database
California currently lacks a consistent method of collecting water data from local water
suppliers. Water data is collected by different state agencies based on their individual
program needs, which leads to overlaps and gaps between the databases. This has been an
34
Chapter 3. Recommendations
obstacle in the data analysis and per capita water use calculations during the development of
the baseline and target numbers. It is recommended that California mandate submittal of
water use and conservation data. Submittal of the data should be coordinated among state
agencies to reduce reporting burdens on local water suppliers.
A uniform streamlined data collection process would have multiple advantages: the
reporting burden on local agencies would be reduced, data reviews related to state action
such as grant disbursement would be expedited, state agencies would have more timely
access to water use data, the quality and accuracy of the data would improve, better and
more complete data would facilitate better water management; and data management costs
would be reduced over time.
At a minimum, suppliers should disaggregate and report usage according to the
following sectors:
􀁹 Single family residential
􀁹 Multi- family residential
􀁹 Commercial
􀁹 Institutional
􀁹 Industrial
􀁹 Dedicated irrigation
􀁹 System water losses
􀁹 Recycled water
As shown in Table 10, data on water supply and demand are managed by five state
agencies, as well as CUWCC. Much of the data collected are unique to the needs of each
agency or CUWCC, and the reporters of data ( mainly water suppliers and water right
holders) do not submit data to all agencies or CUWCC. Data submittal to some state
agencies such as DWR is voluntary, while submittal to other state agencies such as DPH is
mandated by law. Where there is overlap in data needs, common definitions and formats for
submittal of data should be established. There is a need to incorporate the data that is
collected into electronic databases to make the data available for sharing, analysis, and the
administration of the respective programs of the agencies and CUWCC. A centralized
database or data entry web portal for the state agencies with data entry forms customized to
meet the needs of individual agencies and programs could facilitate data sharing and allow
data common to more than one agency to be entered only once by a data reporter. While
CUWCC is not a state agency, coordination with CUWCC would assist in common efforts to
collect data. The following is recommended:
􀁹 Initiate coordination and standardization of data collection
􀁹 Evaluate the feasibility of creating a centralized database or portal for water supply and
demand data.
􀁹 Where there are gaps in the data currently being collected, exercise existing regulatory
authority or seek legislation to require the submittal of the needed data.
􀁹 Establish cost sharing and funding sources to facilitate development and maintenance of
data management systems.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1404 enacted in 2007, the SWRCB— in collaboration
with DWR, DPH, and CALFED— is preparing a report to be submitted to the Legislature in
2009 to evaluate the feasibility, estimated costs, and potential means of financing
coordinated water measurement. This report, when it becomes available, may be valuable in
fulfilling the recommendations above.
However, this type of costly endeavor is not essential to begin the process of
improving data collection and management. Implementation of an improved data collection
35
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
and management process can occur incrementally. For example, DWR should automate the
submittal of summary information from mandated Urban Water Management Plans and
structure data submittal to be consistent with its voluntary Public Water System Survey.
DWR could also provide guidance on standardized methods of GPCD calculation. This
would provide more timely information from water management plans, encourage submittal
of annual water use information, improve the consistency of information received, and
expedite DWR grant application review under AB 1420.
Other simple data management tools are available. An example of such tool is the
GPCD Calculator that was recently developed for the New Mexico Office of the state
Engineer. This calculator introduces a consistent methodology that could standardize data
collection and GPCD calculations. Water suppliers can use the calculator to develop or
refine service area population estimates, calculate per capita use for various water use
sectors, and calculate total system per capita use.
Maintain existing programs and institutions
As new programs, policies, and laws are established to support the achievement of a
20 percent reduction in per capita water use, existing effective programs should continue.
Examples of current programs include CEC’s appliance efficiency standard setting, DWR’s
California Irrigation Management Information System ( CIMIS), and the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Effective institutions such as the CUWCC will also need to
continue and expand their role in water use efficiency, with necessary financial support.
Reduce landscape irrigation demand
Support the implementation and enforcement of landscape design and
irrigation programs and the development of new landscape efficiency programs
Landscape water use has the greatest potential for reduction of any urban water use
sector. According to the California Water Plan Update 2005, approximately one- third of all
urban water use is dedicated to landscape irrigation. Other sources put the number as high as
50 percent. The recently updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, when
complied with as written, will reduce irrigation by roughly 12 percent relative to the earlier
Ordinance. A recent survey of compliance with the original state law requiring local
ordinances showed that many local agencies failed to comply with state law or are only
partially in compliance. A much more vigorous information and outreach effort and perhaps
other enforcement incentives will be needed to ensure that the new ordinance achieves its
potential efficiency improvements. In particular, greater communication and coordination
between local governments and local water suppliers is urgently needed.
The revised Model Ordinance will help to ensure that new landscapes are designed to
be efficient. Certain provisions of the Model Ordinance also encourage greater efficiency in
the irrigation of existing landscapes. However, by itself, the model ordinance may do little to
transform existing high- water- using landscapes, or persuade Californians to choose the most
efficient new landscape designs. Because landscape water conservation offers so much
potential for increased efficiency, a vigorous comprehensive program to improve landscape
water use efficiency will be essential to ensure that the governor’s efficiency goal is met.
Programs based on information, education, additional research, and voluntary changes in
landscaping can be effective and are preferable. Enforcement of the new Model Ordinance
or its equivalent is expected. Additional mandatory restrictions such as two- day- per- week
36
Chapter 3. Recommendations
irrigation have a higher certainty of effectiveness, but would limit options and reduce
flexibility.
Voluntary elements of a comprehensive program should include:
􀁹 Working with landscape architecture curriculum programs to ensure that future
landscape architects have the knowledge to design landscapes and irrigation systems that
are efficient, as well as more suited to California’s climate and conditions
􀁹 Widespread training programs for professional landscape maintenance contractors on
water use efficiency, system maintenance and improvements
􀁹 Educational websites for consumers on landscape design, plant selection, irrigation
system installation and repair
􀁹 Widespread adoption of tiered rates structures or other conservation pricing
􀁹 Widespread installation of separate landscape meters for better information and water
management
􀁹 More irrigation auditor training programs, and more irrigation audit programs provided
by local water suppliers
􀁹 Better communication and coordination between water suppliers and local governments
to ensure consistent policies and programs related to water use efficiency
􀁹 Expansion of programs to promote the use of graywater and rainwater
􀁹 Support for rebate programs that fund improved landscape plantings, reduction of turf
areas, upgrades to irrigation systems and controllers
􀁹 Use of public building landscapes as local examples of good design, installation, and
maintenance
􀁹 Strong local and regional programs to encourage efficient new landscapes, replacement
of older inefficient landscapes, and better management of high- water- using plantings
such as turf
􀁹 Additional research and development of landscape conservation practices and methods.
Implementation of such a comprehensive program is ambitious and would require new
funding and program development at the state, regional, and local levels. Without the
necessary commitment of resources to successfully implement these voluntary programs,
landscape efficiency should be improved through mandates:
􀁹 Limit the irrigation of most landscapes to two days per week or less, in order to
encourage climate- appropriate landscapes, reduce the use of water for irrigation of
landscapes, and reduce the potential for over- irrigation of landscapes. This could be
accomplished through local ordinances, or as new state legislation.
Mandate the landscape irrigation BMP
The CUWCC provides a cooperative forum for the development and implementation
of BMPs. The BMPs are generally considered to be the minimum level of effort for a
credible water conservation program, but these practices are voluntary. AB 1420 ( Laird,
2007) requires implementation of conservation measures listed in the Water Code as a
prerequisite for access to grant funds, but water suppliers that are not applying for state
financial assistance are under no requirement to implement such measures.
In the case of landscape water conservation, implementation of appropriate
conservation practices yields so many benefits that it is worthwhile to consider making
implementation of such measures mandatory. The flexibility of BMP implementation would
not easily translate into mandates in the Water Code. A requirement might take the form of
37
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
mandated measures that are “ at least as effective as” the landscape BMPs. This is the
approach the Legislature has taken in requiring landscape ordinances for new construction.
Require water efficient landscapes at all state- owned properties
Establish a strict policy of low water using landscaping and efficient landscape
equipment at all state- owned or occupied buildings except for historic landscapes or
plantings that provide erosion control. Use state landscapes as examples and teaching tools
for locally- appropriate water- efficient design.
Reduce water waste
Water waste can be reduced by improving water measurement through expedited
installation of water meters, establishment of a standard for water meter accuracy, and the
improvement of detecting and repairing water delivery systems.
Accelerate installation of water meters
At present, state law requires that unmetered connections served by the CVP be
converted to metered connections by 2013, and non- CVP unmetered connections be
converted by January 1, 2025. This law applies to community water systems serving
3,000 connections or more.
All progress comes from careful measurement. Metering of water deliveries is essential
to obtain valid data about consumption and water waste, and to promote water conservation
programs. Communities that do not meter water deliveries will likely find it impossible to
meet reasonable consumption targets. Accordingly, it is recommended that the state
accelerate meter installation and facilitate more widespread metering of small water systems.
It is recommended that California enact legislation to move the state metering deadline from
2025 to 2020.
In addition, the following incentives and disincentive should be considered to
accelerate metering:
􀁹 Provide incentives such as access to additional grant funds for unmetered suppliers that
complete metering before the deadline or suppliers that install improved “ smart” meter
systems, with particular attention to disadvantaged communities
􀁹 Require regions with unmetered connections to dedicate a defined percentage of regional
water management funds to metering.
􀁹 Pursue economic stimulus funds to accelerate metering.
􀁹 Support legislation for additional conservation requirements for suppliers that are not
fully metered.
Metering is the foundation for measuring consumption as well as detecting waste. The
state must continue to push for near universal metering in its urban water systems which
account for the majority of potable water use, and also begin to improve the incidence of
metering in smaller systems and rural areas.
Establish a state standard for water meter accuracy
Water meters generally meet a high standard of accuracy when they are manufactured
and initially calibrated. However, meters tend to become less accurate over time as they are
used and parts begin to wear. Most often, worn meters under- register the volume of water
delivered. This reduces revenue for the water supplier and provides faulty information to the
consumer.
38
Chapter 3. Recommendations
The American Water Works Association has established voluntary standards for meter
accuracy. Some other western states such as Colorado, Idaho, and Texas require minimum
standards of accuracy for meters in use. California should consider meter accuracy standards
written into code at no less than +/- 2.5 percent.
Revise the water loss BMP to incorporate improved methodologies
In every hydrologic region, well above 10 percent of urban potable water produced is
unaccounted for ( non- revenue water). This may include system leaks, meter errors,
emergency use ( e. g., fire fighting), and/ or unauthorized use. The high proportion of non-revenue
water represents a major potential for reduction in urban water demand.
Leak detection methodologies have improved considerably and water suppliers can
reduce non- revenue water beyond levels stated in BMP 3. It is recommended that this BMP
be revised such that maximum allowable levels of non- revenue water are expressed in terms
of gallons per connection per day, instead of the present format where it is expressed in
terms of percentage of produced water. A standard of a maximum of 40 gallons per
connection per day is achievable by 2020.
Reinforce Efficiency Codes and related BMPs
As technology advances, water and energy use efficiency codes for appliances and
equipment should be established or strengthened.
Obtain authorization for state standards for high efficiency clothes washer
Continue the California appeal of the U. S. Department of Energy’s denial for a waiver
of federal preemption for the State’s water efficiency standards for residential clothes
washers. Once the waiver is approved, pursue a waiver to regulate commercial coin- operated
clothes washers.
Support landscape Irrigation equipment standards
Support CEC approval of landscape irrigation equipment standards and labeling
requirements, and follow with a variety of rebate and outreach programs to accelerate
upgrades of irrigation equipment installed in the state. AB 1881 ( Laird, 2006) requires that
the CEC develop efficiency standards for irrigation equipment including controllers,
irrigation heads, valves, and sensors. This effort is underway in 2009.
Accelerate replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and urinals
Older toilets do not meet the 1.6 gallon per flush standard. Toilets with a higher flush
volume— those designed to use 3.5 gallons and those installed before the advent of
efficiency standards— should be replaced with toilets using 1.6 gallons or toilets that meet
the new 1.28 gallon standard.
Support legislation to require replacement of inefficient toilets, showerheads, and
urinals in both the residential and commercial/ industrial sectors. Potential approaches
include:
􀁹 Replacement of inefficient fixtures upon resale ( responsibility on property seller)
􀁹 Replacement of inefficient fixtures upon change of water service ( responsibility on new
water customer)
􀁹 Replacement of all inefficient fixtures by 2020 ( implemented in early years by rebate
programs and information campaigns)
39
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
Accelerate adoption of proven water saving technologies in new businesses
Research and evaluation has been completed by the CUWCC and others on a host of
water conservation technologies, including:
􀁹 On- premise laundries ( e. g., hotels, hospitals, universities, prisons, etc.)
􀁹 Building cooling systems
􀁹 Efficient residential dishwashers for new construction
􀁹 Vehicle wash systems
􀁹 Residential hot water distribution systems for new construction
􀁹 Commercial ice machines
Continue to support CUWCC research initiatives to develop reliable data on water
savings from emerging technologies, promote use of these technologies in the marketplace,
and support efficiency standards in law as needed.
Provide financial incentives